Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam

In a historic 3-Judge Bench judgment, the Supreme Court definitively resolved the scope of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. Overruling the narrower interpretation in Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh and resolving contradictory High Court decisions, the Court held that the 90-day investigation period under Section 167(2)(a)(i) applies only where the minimum punishment is not less than 10 years. For offences where punishment can extend up to 10 years (such as Section 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act), the 60-day period under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) applies. The Court also held that an accused need not file a formal written application; an oral plea expressing willingness to furnish bail is sufficient to enforce the indefeasible right.

• 60-Day Rule for Offences Up to 10 Years: The 90-day period applies strictly to offences where the statutory minimum sentence is not less than 10 years; for offences where sentence is up to 10 years, default bail accrues after 60 days.
• Overruling / Modifying Bhupinder Singh: Clarified that Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh (2006) 6 SCC 277 cannot be read as expanding the 90-day window to offences punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.
• Indefeasible Constitutional Right: Default bail under Section 167(2) is not merely a statutory right but an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21.
• Oral Application Sufficient: An accused does not lose their accrued right to default bail merely because a formal written application was not filed before the charge-sheet was submitted.
• Duty of the Court: Magistrates and Judges are under an affirmative legal obligation to inform the undertrial of their right to default bail upon expiry of the statutory period.

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Paul, former Chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission, was arrested on 5 November 2016 in connection with allegations of cash-for-jobs under Sections 120B, 420, 468 IPC and Sections 13(1)(a)(b)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Offences under Section 13(2) of the PC Act (pre-2018 amendment) were punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 4 years but which may extend to 10 years.

The petitioner completed 60 days in custody on 3 January 2017, but the investigating agency failed to file the charge-sheet within 60 days. The petitioner moved an application for regular bail before the High Court, asserting that the investigation was incomplete.

The Gauhati High Court rejected the bail plea, relying on Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh (2006) 6 SCC 277, holding that since the maximum sentence could extend up to 10 years, the investigating agency had 90 days to complete investigation under Section 167(2)(a)(i). The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

The language of Section 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC is clear: the period of 90 days applies only to an investigation relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. The words 'not less than ten years' mean that the minimum sentence prescribed must be 10 years. If an offence provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, but does not prescribe a minimum sentence of 10 years, it falls under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) and the period of detention without charge-sheet cannot exceed 60 days. An offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act carries a sentence of 4 years up to 10 years; since the minimum is 4 years, it does not satisfy the test of 'not less than ten years'. Consequently, the investigating agency had only 60 days to file the charge-sheet. The decision in Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh was rendered in the context of Section 304B IPC (punishable with 7 years up to life imprisonment) and cannot be cited as authority for the proposition that an offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years allows 90 days for investigation. The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right linked to the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21. Once the statutory period of 60 or 90 days expires and the charge-sheet has not been filed, the right accrues immediately. The accused is not required to file a formal, elaborate written application. Even an oral application or a simple petition expressing willingness to furnish bail is sufficient. Furthermore, it is the duty of the Magistrate to inform the undertrial that the period of 60 or 90 days has expired and that he is entitled to be released on default bail.

• Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616: Reaffirmed Rakesh Kumar Paul, holding default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21.
• M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485: Followed Rakesh Kumar Paul holding that subsequent complaint cannot extinguish accrued right.
• CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024) 3 SCC 734: Cited on strictly enforcing statutory limits of police custody.