1. Introduction

The landmark judgment in Qamar Ghani Usmani v. The State of Gujarat (2023 INSC 337) delivered by the Supreme Court of India delves into the procedural requirements for granting extensions of judicial custody under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case scrutinizes whether the absence of the accused during the extension process invalidates the extension and consequently entitles the accused to default bail.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In this case, the accused, Qamar Ghani Usmani, was arrested on January 29, 2022. The initial period of judicial custody under Section 167 of CrPC was set to expire on April 29, 2022. However, the Investigating Officer (IO) sought an extension, which was granted by the Trial Court without the accused's presence. Subsequent extensions were granted, with the second extension made in the presence of the accused. The High Court of Gujarat denied the appeals for default bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that due process was followed despite the absence of the accused during the first extension.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references several key Supreme Court decisions:

• Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602: Established that notice to the accused is mandatory before granting an extension of custody.
• Sanjay Dutt v. State Through C.B.I, Bombay (Ii) (1994) 5 SCC 410: Interpreted that the presence of the accused suffices, negating the necessity for written notice.
• Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State (2012) 12 SCC 1: Held that retrospective extension of custody is impermissible.
• Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290): Reinforced the necessity of the accused’s presence during extensions to prevent potential abuse of custody extensions.
• Rambeer Shokeen v. State (Nct Of Delhi) (2018) 4 SCC 405: Asserted that default bail is applicable only after the rejection of extension applications or when chargesheets are not filed within the prescribed time.
• Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65: Clarified that the accused has no right to be heard during the investigation stage, including extensions.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the procedural lapses in granting the first extension without the accused’s presence warranted the granting of default bail. The Court held that:

• The accused was informed about the first extension immediately after it was granted.
• The accused did not contest the first extension promptly, thereby waiving any potential grievances.
• The second extension was granted in the presence of the accused, reinforcing the legal process.
• The chargesheet was filed within the extended period, nullifying the grounds for default bail.

Thus, the procedural irregularity in the first extension did not substantively impair the legal process, as the accused neither challenged the extension nor did the ongoing extensions violate fundamental legal principles.

3.3. Impact

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's stance on the stringent application of procedural norms under Section 167(2) CrPC. It underscores that:

• Extensions need not necessarily trigger default bail if procedural integrity is maintained subsequently.
• The presence of the accused during extensions is crucial but does not alone render extensions invalid if later rectified.
• Accused individuals bear the onus to timely contest any perceived procedural lapses to avail themselves of safeguards like default bail.

Future cases will reference this judgment to balance procedural adherence with substantive rights of the accused, particularly in custody extension scenarios.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat serves as a pivotal reference for the judiciary in handling extensions of custody. It emphasizes the importance of adherence to procedural norms while balancing the rights of the accused. The judgment clarifies that mere absence of the accused during an extension does not automatically lead to default bail unless such lapses are contested within a reasonable timeframe. This serves to protect the integrity of the investigative process while ensuring that the rights of the accused are safeguarded against arbitrary custodial extensions.

The ruling thus reinforces a structured approach to custody extensions, compelling all parties to uphold procedural fairness and accountability within the criminal justice system.