Mumbai, March 23, 2021 – In a significant ruling, the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, Shri Vivek V. Kathare, today granted “default bail” to Ganesh Babu Ubhare, 37, an accused in a corruption and forgery case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bail was granted under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) because the CBI failed to file a chargesheet against Ubhare within the stipulated 60-day period from his arrest.

Ubhare, a resident of Vasai (E), Palghar, was arrested on January 6, 2021, in connection with R.C. No. 05/E/2020, registered by CBI, EOB, Mumbai. The charges against him include criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust by a public servant, specifically under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 465, 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

His legal counsel, Ld. Adv. Mr. E. B. Dixit with P. R. Yadav, argued that Ubhare had completed 60 days in custody on March 6, 2021, and since the CBI had not filed the chargesheet by then, he was entitled to default bail, also known as statutory bail.

The CBI, represented by SPP Mr. J. K. Sharma, strongly opposed the bail application, contending that the offenses were serious, and one of the charges, Section 467 of the IPC (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years and a fine. The CBI argued that due to the nature of this offense, the investigative agency should have 90 days to file the chargesheet, not 60 days.

However, after reviewing the arguments and relevant judgments, Special Judge Kathare sided with the applicant. The court relied on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, particularly “Rakesh Kumar Paul v/s. State of Assam (2017)” and “Rajeev Chaudhary v/s. State (NCT) of Delhi (2001).”

The core of the court’s reasoning hinged on the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The judge emphasized that the 90-day period for filing a chargesheet applies only to offenses punishable with “not less than ten years” of imprisonment (i.e., a minimum of ten years or more), or death, or life imprisonment. For all other cases, where the minimum sentence is less than ten years, and the maximum is not death or life imprisonment, the investigation period is 60 days.

Crucially, the court noted that while Section 467 of the IPC allows for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or up to ten years, it does not stipulate a “minimum” imprisonment of ten years. Therefore, as per established legal precedents, it falls under the 60-day rule for chargesheet filing.

“The words ‘not less than’ occurring in Clause (i) to proviso (a) of Sec.167(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be given their natural and obvious meaning, which means offence punishable with minimum ten years of imprisonment in which case, period of investigation would be ninety days,” the order stated, quoting “Rakesh Kumar Paul v/s. State of Assam.” The court concluded that since Section 467 IPC is not an offense punishable with a minimum of ten years imprisonment, the applicable period for detention in custody for investigation purposes was 60 days.

Since the CBI failed to file the chargesheet by March 6, 2021 (the 60th day), an “indefeasible right” to default bail accrued to Ganesh Babu Ubhare. The court further cited the principle that no “subterfuge should be resorted to, to defeat indefeasible right of accused for default bail during interregnum when statutory period of filing chargesheet expires.”

Consequently, Ganesh Babu Ubhare has been ordered to be released on default bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

The bail is subject to several conditions:

• Ubhare must furnish his permanent residential address, documentary proof, and cell number, along with contact details for two close relatives, and report any change in address to the Trial Court.
• He is prohibited from leaving the territory of India without prior court permission and must surrender his passport, if any, to the Registrar of the Court as a precondition for his release.
• He must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the case facts to dissuade them from disclosing information or tampering with evidence.
• He must not engage in any criminal activities while on bail.

The court explicitly stated that the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail in the event of any breach of these conditions. The application has been disposed of accordingly.