Criminal Procedure Code

M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

(2021) 2 SCC 485

Facts

M. Ravindran was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act.
The statutory investigation period expired without a charge-sheet.
He filed an application for default bail and expressed readiness to furnish bail.
Later on the same day, after the application had been filed, the prosecution submitted its complaint or charge-sheet.
The prosecution argued that the filing before the bail order was passed defeated the statutory right.
Conflicting arguments existed concerning the effect of:
the time of application;
the time of filing the report;
and actual furnishing of the bond.

Whether filing the charge-sheet after a default-bail application but before the release order extinguishes the right.
At what precise point the entitlement becomes enforceable.
Whether default bail can later be cancelled merely because the report is filed.

The right arises immediately upon expiry of the statutory investigation period.
It becomes enforceable when the accused:
applies for default bail;
and offers to furnish bail.
A charge-sheet filed after that application cannot defeat the crystallised right.
If the prosecution files the report before any application is made, the accused can no longer claim release solely on default.
The court must decide the application promptly.
The prosecution cannot gain advantage from judicial or administrative delay.
Once default bail is granted, later filing of the report is not by itself a ground for cancellation.
Cancellation requires ordinary grounds, such as:
absconding;
witness intimidation;
tampering;
breach of conditions;
or other misuse of liberty.

Ravindran’s application was filed after the lawful period had expired.
At that moment:
the investigation was in default;
no valid report was before the court;
and he had expressed willingness to comply with bail conditions.
The State’s interpretation would allow the right to be defeated through a race to file papers after learning of the application.
That would undermine the discipline imposed upon investigating agencies.
The right does not depend on:
when the judge becomes available;
how quickly the registry places the file;
or how long surety verification takes.
Those matters are outside the accused’s control.
The Court harmonised Sanjay Dutt and Uday Mohanlal Acharya.
Sanjay Dutt applies where the accused allows the default to continue without invoking the right until after filing of the report.
Uday Mohanlal Acharya applies where the accused invokes the right while the default exists.
Ravindran fell in the latter category.
The prosecution’s later filing could support continued proceedings but not retrospective legality of custody during the crystallised default-bail stage.

The Supreme Court held that Ravindran’s right crystallised when he filed the application after expiry of the statutory period.
The later prosecution filing could not defeat it.
Default bail, once granted, could be cancelled only on ordinary bail-cancellation grounds. ( )