This article is written by Shamyana Parveen. In this case, there were complaints about involvement in corruption of Rakesh Kumar Paul, who is a former Chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). It is mainly related to the legal analysis of ‘default bail’ under Indian laws with references to cases. The case related to Sections 120B, 420, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, respectively. It also contains provisions from the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Introduction

Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) is the case where the petitioner was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court’s decision is evident in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, where the court held that the police had to stick to the procedural timeline in a criminal investigation. It re-affirms the rationale of the existent default bail to be one of the defense mechanisms that the accused persons possess against oppressive detentions without any legal charges being preferred against them. The ruling also reminds the judicial system that its job is to protect people from being mistreated by those in power while at the same time acknowledging the need for regular and effective investigations by the police.

Details of the case

Case name: Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017)

Download Now

Case no.: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2009 of 2017

Type of case: Criminal Appeal

Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Prafulla C. Pant

Date of the judgement: 16th August, 2017

Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 SC 3948

Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar Paul

Respondent: State of Assam

Laws involved in the case:

Facts of the case

An FIR was filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but the petitioner in this case, Rakesh Kumar Paul, was never mentioned in that FIR. On 5th November 2016, Rakesh Kumar Paul was arrested and taken into custody under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He attempted to seek bail before the Special Judge on December 20, 2016; however, the application was denied. 

Then, he again moved for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Gauhati High Court on January 01, 2017, which was rejected. On January 03, 2017, the period of 60 days of detention for the petitioner had to end. This is the maximum period for detention during the continuance of the process of investigation (no charge sheet or challan has been produced) allowed by clause 2(a)(ii) of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 

The State further argued that the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) would apply because the Petitioner had committed offences which attract a sentence of not less than ten years imprisonment, and therefore the period of detention was extended to 90 days. On January 11, 2017, the petitioner prayed for bail before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, whose order was also turned down. He had sought ‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ bail and not ‘technical’ bail, known as ‘default bail’. Default bail is filed when the duration of the detention of 60 days comes to an end, and within that duration, there was a failure to prefer a charge. After that, a charge sheet was filed against Paul on January 24, 2017.

Issues raised

  1. Was the petitioner entitled to ‘default bail’ starting from 3rd or 4th January 2017, and definitely by 11th January 2017, when the Gauhati High Court rejected his application for ‘regular bail’?
  2.  Whether Paul could be detained without a charge sheet for 60 days or 90 days?

Contentions of the parties

Petitioner’s arguments

  • The Petitioner argued that the phrase “not less than” 10 years of imprisonment should be interpreted as a minimum sentence of 10 years, referencing the case of Rajeev Chaudhary vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2001).
  • The argument of the petitioner was that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) in Section 13(2), the maximum sentence is seven years only, and the charge sheet should have been filed within 60 days, which is by January 4, 2017.The failure to do so entitled the accused to ‘default bail’ under Section 167(2) of the Code.
  • Even if the PC Act was amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, to extend the punishment to 10 years, the charge sheet should still have been filed within the 60-day window.
  • The Investigation Agency had not filed the charge sheet within 60 days, so it was in default for not doing so. Section 167(2) of the Code furnishes the grounds to release the accused, even though the charges against the accused could lead to a maximum sentence of seven years.

State’s response

  • The State contended that the appropriate punishment for a case is determined by the court based on the specific facts and circumstances, as established in Bhupinder Singh vs. Jarnail Singh (2006).
  • The State argued that the ‘impregnable right’ to bail is valid only until a charge sheet or challan is filed, and it ceases to exist once the charge sheet or challan is submitted in court, citing Sanjay Dutt vs. State (1994).
  • The State authority said that there is no record of the petitioner having moved this court or any other court for default bail during the period between 4th January and 24th January 2017, when he lost his right for default bail with the filing of a charge sheet.

Laws involved in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Section 167 (2) of the CrPC

Section 167(2) of the CrPC mandates that if the investigation is not completed within a specified period of 90 for offences punishable with imprisonment of at least 10 years and 60 days for other offences, then the accused is entitled to bail by default.

The main issue in this case was the interpretation of Section 167 (2) of the CrPC, which deals with the maximum period for which an accused can be detained without a charge sheet being filed. If the investigation is not done within the said period (90 days for crimes that attract a jail term of not less than 10 years and 60 days for other crimes), the accused person is released on bail, referred to as “default bail.”

Present status of the provision

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is the new Act which was introduced on the 11th of August, 2023, to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It came into effect from 1st July, 2024. The provision of Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the procedure when an investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours, has been incorporated into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, 2023. In the BNSS, 2023, this provision is reflected in Section 187(2). It is the mirroring provision of Section 167 (2) of CrPC. Section 187 (2) of BNSS Act, 2023 provides that the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this Section may, irrespective of whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration the status of the accused person as to whether he is not released on bail or his bail has not been cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial 40 days or 60 days out of the detention period of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, as provided in Sub-Section (3).

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section 13 of the PC Act, 1988

This section deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant of property with intent that is not related to public service or where such an act displeases the owners of such property. Intentionally enrich themselves illicitly during their period of office. This includes having cash or property which is inconsistent with one’s identified means of income, which one cannot explain adequately. The criminal misconduct of any public servant shall make them liable to imprisonment for a term not less than one year but which may be longer than seven years and be liable for a fine. 

In this case, Rakesh Kumar Paul engaged in misconduct by taking advantage, which is undue and procured by misuse of his position for gain that may involve misappropriation of property and money. The charges preferred against Rakesh Kumar Paul were being in possession of things of value or pecuniary gains without making any compensation, which is a connotation of corruption.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Section 120B of IPC

This section deals with the crime of criminal conspiracy. The essence of the offence is where, by agreement, two or more persons commit an offence or do a legal act by wrong means. If the conspiracy is to commit an offence for which some punishment is provided in this code, and such punishment is death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more, the punishment is the same as if such person had abetted the offence. Where conspiracies are to be made on other offences, penalties include imprisonment not exceeding six months, a fine or both. Rakesh Kumar Paul, being part of a group, was charged with abetting the commission of corrupt activities and fraud.

Present status of the provision

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, was enacted on 25th December 2023, repealing and replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. It came into effect from 1st July, 2024. The provision of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy, has been incorporated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, under Section 61. There is no change in the content of the new Section 61 of the BNS Act, 2023. The Section has been rearranged, and the format has been modified without changing the content.

Section 420 of IPC

Section 420 of the IPC pertains to the offence of cheating and dishonestly, including the delivery of property. The Section applies where a man cheats and dishonestly causes the person deceived to deliver any property or goods to any person or to alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and capable of being converted into any valuable security. The punishment that can be given for this as an offence is up to seven years, with a fine also included. In the case, the allegations included that Rakesh Kumar Paul, through fraudulent means, caused others to deliver any property or money to him, which is recognised by this Section as cheating.

Present status of the provision

The provision of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, has been consolidated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, under Section 318(4). There is no change in the content of new Section 318 (4) of the BNS Act, 2023.

Section 468 of IPC

Section 468 of the IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. This Section applies to any person who commits forgery with the purpose of making it appear or knowing that it will be made to appear that a document or electronic record has been created when it has or has not been altered. The offence committed in this regard attracts a penalty that may not exceed seven years, and the offender is also punishable by a fine. This case made allegations that Rakesh Kumar Paul counterfeited the documents or records for corrupt practices and for the purpose of cheating others.

Present status of the provision

The provision of Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating, has been consolidated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, under Section 336 (3). There is no change in the content of new Section 336 (3) of the BNS Act, 2023. It is the same as the previous Section 468 of the IPC Act, 1860.

Judgement in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017)

The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgement in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) on 16th August 2017, which concluded that the ‘default bail’ was recognized for Rakesh Kumar Paul under Section 167(2) of CrPC, 1973.

According to the opinion of Justice Madan B. Lokur, the bail is said to be the bar that cannot be beaten, and any petitioner shall be released after a period of sixty days if the charge sheet is not filed. The petitioner had complied with all the aspects of an application for default bail. In the case where the minimum period has been prescribed, the sentencing judge cannot but give a sentence of at least that amount prescribed. Hence, the words ‘not less than’ are used in clause (i) to proviso (a) of section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. (and in other provisions) must be given its natural and obvious meaning, which is to say, not below a minimum threshold and in the case of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. These words must refer to an offence for which the person convicted is liable to be punished with not less than ten years imprisonment. On the question of personal liability, the court should not be too technical and must proceed on the broad principles of liberty of the subject. On questions concerning liberty and Article 21 of the Constitution, it would be very unwise to be strictly technical. The criminal magistrate shall order the giving of the so-called default bail.

Justice Deepak Gupta stated that even if the power was sought to be exercised by filling the charge sheet after the accused had offered to furnish bail, the indefeasible right could not be defeated. Even though the period had expired, the Accused would be deemed to be in legal custody till he does not furnish the bail.

The original demand was to furnish the bail. In all cases where the minimum is less than 10 years but the maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment, section 167(2)(a)(ii) will apply. The accused does not have to plead any cause for the grant of bail. He does not have to complete the paperwork for a detailed application. In the application, all he has to affirm is that since 60 days have expired and no charge sheet has been filed, he should be released on bail. The Bail shall be granted, in case a bail has been provided.

Justice Prafulla C. Pant stated that an offence where the penalty can attract imprisonment for 10 years, the accused is only allowed bail on default after 90 days. This allegation not only involved an economic offence but also a violation of the constitutional rights of the victim of the crime. In any case, it was not fit to grant bail at this stage, even on merit. The intention of the legislature was that if an offence was punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years, then it comes under Section 167(2)(a)(i). As it is seen, the bail on default is contingent upon the application asserting the statutory right under section 167(2) of the code. For example, in the case of enforcement of statutory rights, such an application has to be made before the magistrate. It is a matter of constitutional fraud and not only economic fraud. The Accused should be in custody for 90 days.

The Supreme Court decided that if the punishment for a crime can be more than 10 years then the rules for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC apply. The court interpreted the idea of personal liberty by stating that it is founded and unchangeable regardless of the State’s perspective of justice. The Apex Court held that Paul was legally capable of receiving the default bail since no charge sheet had been filed within sixty days from the date of his arrest.

Rationale behind

The rationale behind the judgement in this case is mainly on the interpretation of legal provisions related to default bail and the protection of personality. Some of the points are discussed below:

  1. Explaining about the eligibility for bail: The petitioner satisfied all the circumstances for “default bail”, as per the provision given legal time limit, which was justifying his freedom, this was stated by the judge who believed in equality.
  2. Majority vs. minority opinion on bail: The majority of the judges held that after the period of 60 days default bail should be granted, for the crimes that are punishable by up to 10 years. The minority opinion was attentive to the fact that the petitioner had earlier pleaded for default bail and must be permitted to leave as per legal schedule.
  3. Explanation of not less than ten years: According to Section 167(2)(a)(i), the dissenting judge expressed an opinion that “not less than” must be interpreted in its direct sense, which specifies that the offence should have a minimum sentence of not less than ten years. Where the offence specifies a minimum sentence of less than ten years and the maximum sentence is neither death nor life imprisonment, the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) would be pertinent in that case.

Dissenting opinion

The Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs State of Assam (2017) has been split with the majority holding that for offences for which the punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years, if the charge sheet is not filed within sixty days, the accused should be entitled for ‘default bail’. In such cases, default bail should apply after the 90 days.

However, Justice Prafulla C. Pant had a different view. Justice Prafulla emphasised those words that the right to bail is absolute and that this should not be spoiled by a detained charge sheet for the accused once bail is appealed. He also provided a hint that the case involved not just the aspect of lawbreaking in money matters but also a constitutional violation of the victims’ rights and, therefore, was not fit for consideration of bail at that stage, no matter the merits of the case.

The other party’s argument was based on the fact that the term “not less than” connotes a positive degree of something fixed. Thus, it was recommended that in the application of section 167 CrPC, this should be speaking of an offence that is punishable with imprisonment of at least 10 years.

Critical analysis of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017)

The judgement given by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam is to analyse how the court protects individuals in the criminal justice system. The decision declares the need to recognise the values of personal freedoms with special reference to the right of ‘default bail’ without undue adherence to the technicalities of procedure. It involves a matter-of-fact overview of legal justification, as well as a view of its conclusion regarding the rights of the accused.

  1. Logical perspective: The court’s investigation was mainly focused on the protection of an individual’s liberty from tyrannical custody, and it is very deeply rooted in a diligent knowledge of the legal system. The decision of the court accurately examined the clause of ‘default bail’, underscoring its importance as a defense against the possibility of the State corrupting the legal procedure.
  2. Legal Interpretation: The phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than ten years” was very important as the court carefully analysed it. In terms of laws, there is a need for clarity, which is highlighted by the court, including the 90-day period for ‘default bail’ so that the rights of the accused can be understood. The court asked for a clear and straightforward interpretation. It ensures that the law is applied exactly as it is clearly stated, leaving no ambiguity that could affect the rights of the accused.
  3. Effect on law enforcement and execution: In the disposal of the case, the rules and regulations particularly in the criminal justice chain may be over emphasised with a potential for systematic gains. Thus, the time frame for inspection and charge sheets that the law enforcement agencies and attorneys will have to be more proactive.
  4. Argument for judicial decision: If the matter is looked at from an advocate of judicial activism, then it may be said that in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, the decision of the court rightly signifies that the judiciary actively plays the part of a sentinel for the rights of the people of this country. As they do not allow for infringement on certain rights, such as freedom, they would perceive the court’s approach as an accountability mechanism to the legislature and the executive arm of the government.

Conclusion

The case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. the State of Assam is important for understanding personal freedom and the right to bail in India. It shows how complex the judicial process is and its impact on individual rights. The case also highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional principles from state interference. Studying this case helps uncover its detailed aspects and emphasises its significance in the judicial system.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the meaning of ‘default bail’?

If the authorities don’t file a charge sheet within a specified time, the accused can be released on bail. This is known as “default bail” under Section 167(2)(a) of the CrPC, which protects the rights of the accused. 

Can a judicial decision be an essential moment for the rights of personal liberty?

Indeed, this case is seen as transformative because it emphasises that personal freedom should not be compromised when the state is delivering justice.

In the same regard, how is the right to bail being collided due to this case in India?

Default bail can be granted if certain conditions are met, as shown in the case. This case highlighted the importance of personal freedom and the requirements the state must meet to follow proper procedures.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here