Case Title: Saravanan v. State

According to the Supreme Court, a conditional deposit of money cannot be required when default bail or statutory bail is granted under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The only prerequisite for receiving default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., is that the accused has been imprisoned for more than 60 or 90 days, as appropriate, that the investigation has not been concluded and no chargesheet has been filed by the 60th or 90th day, and that the accused has applied for default bail, the bench made this observation while establishing a deadline.

The court further said that the circumstances for evaluating a statutory bail or default bail application differ from those for evaluating a normal bail application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

When the investigation is not finished within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet has been filed by the 60th or 90th day, the accused gains an "indefeasible right" to default bail, and the accused becomes entitled to default bail once the accused applies for default bail. This is how the Court ruled on the accused's appeal against the imposition of this condition, citing Section 167 CrPC. Referring to Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, the judge stated:

"The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no 9 chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such a condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.As observed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) and in other decisions, the accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail, subject to the eventuality occurring in Section 167, Cr.P.C., namely, an investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail."

The court observed that the High Court had placed such a condition taking into account that wife of the accused had earlier filed an affidavit to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/­ before the Magistrate, who was examining the normal bail plea under Section 437 Cr.P.C. According to the ruling, there cannot be a justification for mandating the recipient of default bail or statutory bail to deposit the required sum.

The Court additionally noted that another requirement set forth by the High Court—directing the accused to appear every day at 10:00 a.m. at the relevant police station until further orders—is similarly unjustifiable since it is excessively severe. The court stated, “Instead, the condition that can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer to complete the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interview as and when called for, and on breach, the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of such condition."

The court overturned the aforementioned restrictions and granted the appeal.