In the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) has been subsequently watered down by this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra). It is submitted that the view taken by this Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) that at the time of extension of time for investigation, a notice to the accused is required to be given by the Designated Court before it grants any extension is no longer a good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra). It is submitted that in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra) this Court has explained the decision in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and has observed and held that the only requirement is the production of the accused before the Court in accordance with Section 167(1) of the Cr.PC and that the accused is not entitled to written notice giving reasons for the extension.
I the case of Qamar Ghani Usmani vs The State Of Gujarat the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
The accused was arrested on 29.01.2022. The 90 days provided under Section 167 Cr.PC thus would expire on 29.04.2022.Within the period of 90 days i.e., on 22.04.2022, the IO submitted the report and prayed for extension of time for completing the investigation which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court by granting extension of 30 days period. It is true that for whatever reason, the accused was not kept present at the time when the learned Trial Court considered the report submitted by the IO for extension of time for completing the investigation. However, the accused came to be informed about the extension on the very next day i.e., 23.04.2022. The accused did not challenge the extension on any ground which may be available to him and/or did not make any grievance that such an extension is illegal and/or contrary to law. On 10.05.2022, he made the present application for default bail/statutory bail on the ground that the chargesheet has not been filed within the period of 90 days. At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the time when the present application for default/statutory bail was made on 10.05.2022, there was already an extension of time by the learned Trial Court which as such was in existence and the extension was up to 22.05.2022. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though informed on 23.04.2022 about the extension of time for completing the investigation, the accused did not disclose the same in the application for default bail/statutory bail submitted on 10.05.2022. That thereafter, on 22.05.2022, IO again submitted the report for further extension of time for completing the investigation which came to be allowed/granted by the learned Trial Court which as such was in the presence of the accused and at that time, the accused remained present. Neither the first extension nor the second extension came to be challenged by the accused.”
- Therefore, in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when two extensions granted by the Court which are not challenged and at the time when the default bail application was made on 10.05.2022 there was already an extension and even thereafter, also there was a second extension which was in presence of the accused and thereafter, when the chargesheet has been filed within the period of extension, the accused is not entitled to be released on statutory/default bail as prayed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court denying the statutory/default bail to the accused.
- In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and, in the facts, and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of statutory/default bail. Under the circumstances, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the accused to prayer for regular bail which may be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. Present appeals stand dismissed accordingly.
