Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge of the CBI Court in Greater Mumbai, Shri A.S. Sayyad, on June 18, 2021, rejected the default bail application filed by Jagmohan Sagar, an accused in a corruption case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court ruled that the period during which the applicant was on interim bail cannot be counted towards the statutory 60-day period required for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Case Background: Allegations of Corruption and a Personal Tragedy
Jagmohan Sagar was arrested on April 10, 2021, by the CBI’s Economic Offences Wing (EOB), Mumbai, in connection with RC No. 0682021 E 0006. The case was registered for offenses punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 7, 7(A), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
Following his arrest, Sagar was initially remanded to CBI custody until April 14, 2021, and then to judicial custody. A personal tragedy struck in April when his father passed away due to the Coronavirus. To perform the last rites, including “Asthi Visarjan” (immersion of ashes), Sagar sought and was granted interim bail on May 13, 2021. He was directed to surrender to jail authorities by June 1, 2021.
However, Sagar sought extensions for his interim bail multiple times. After hearing both sides, the court rejected his final extension application on June 11, 2021, and cancelled the interim bail, ordering his immediate surrender. Consequently, Sagar surrendered to Taloja Jail authority on June 14, 2021, and has remained in judicial custody since.
The Default Bail Application: A Matter of Calculation
Sagar’s application for default bail, filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., contended that the prosecution had failed to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within the stipulated 60-day period from his arrest on April 10, 2021. He argued that this failure granted him an “indefeasible right” to default bail.
The investigating officer, Shri Ashok Yadav, through Ld. S.P.P. Shri J.K. Sharma, opposed the application, labeling it “premature.” The prosecution argued that Sagar had incorrectly calculated the 60-day period by including the time he spent on interim bail. They asserted that the period of interim bail should not be counted as time spent “in custody” for the purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. A report from the Sessions Registrar confirmed that no charge sheet had been filed as of the date of the application.
Court’s Analysis: Interpreting “Custody” Under Cr.P.C.
Special Judge A.S. Sayyad meticulously examined the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which allows for default bail if an investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense and its punishment.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaganti Satyanarayan & Ors. V. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986), which clarified that the 90-day (or 60-day) period for default bail commences from the date of remand, not an anterior date. More critically, the court cited para 137 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gautam Navlakha V/s. National Investigation Agency (Criminal Appeal No. 510/2021), which stated that “custody under section 167 has been understood hitherto as police custody and judicial custody, with judicial custody being conflated to jail custody ordinarily.”
Applying this legal precedent, the court calculated Sagar’s period of actual detention. He was arrested on April 10, 2021, and remained in judicial custody until May 13, 2021, totaling 34 days. He was then on interim bail from May 13, 2021, until he surrendered on June 14, 2021, which amounts to 33 days.
The court explicitly stated that the period of interim bail could not be accounted for as “custody” under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
“The applicant has wrongly calculated the period of interim bail as period under custody to arrive of the limit of 60 days for entitlement of default bail,” the order stated.
Conclusion: Application Deemed Premature
Based on its calculation, the court found that Jagmohan Sagar had been in actual detention for only 34 days until the filing of his default bail application. Since the statutory 60-day period of actual custody had not been completed, his right to default bail had not accrued.
The court concluded that while the right to default bail is a fundamental right, it only arises when the prescribed conditions are fulfilled, specifically regarding the nature and duration of detention under Section 167 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the Criminal Bail Application No. 519 of 2021 was rejected, with the court declaring it “sans of merit as premature.”
This ruling underscores the strict interpretation of “custody” in the context of default bail, emphasizing that periods of interim release do not contribute to the custodial period required for such a claim.