Criminal Procedure Code

Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa

(1975) 2 SCC 220

Facts

The accused were arrested in a serious criminal case.
The police failed to complete investigation and submit the final report within sixty days, which was the statutory period applicable under Section 167(2) at that time.
The Magistrate continued their detention because:
the alleged offence was grave;
investigation remained incomplete;
and release might hinder the prosecution.
The accused claimed the statutory right to bail after expiry of the prescribed period.
The State argued that courts possessed inherent authority to continue detention in serious cases.

Whether a Magistrate can continue remand after expiry of the statutory investigation period without filing a charge-sheet.
Whether seriousness of the offence permits an exception to default bail.
Whether inherent judicial power can override Section 167(2).

Section 167(2) limits detention during incomplete investigation.
Once the prescribed period expires, the accused must be released on bail if:
they apply;
and are prepared to furnish bail.
The provision reflects legislative control over pre-charge-sheet detention.
Courts cannot use inherent or implied powers to extend a period fixed by Parliament.
Seriousness of the accusation may be relevant to ordinary bail.
It does not remove the default-bail right created by failure to complete investigation in time.
Release under Section 167(2) is treated as release under the general bail framework.
It does not:
terminate investigation;
prevent filing of a charge-sheet;
or amount to acquittal.
Bail may later be cancelled on legally recognised grounds.
BNSS Section 187 retains default bail after sixty or ninety days, subject to its modified police-custody structure.

The Court acknowledged the practical difficulty faced by investigating agencies in serious cases.
However, Section 167 represented a conscious legislative choice.
The State could not keep a person indefinitely in custody merely by stating that more investigation was necessary.
The time limit creates pressure upon police to:
act diligently;
collect evidence promptly;
and place the case before judicial scrutiny.
If courts could extend detention whenever allegations were serious, the statutory safeguard would disappear in precisely the cases where liberty is most vulnerable.
The Magistrate’s concern about public safety could be examined when setting:
reasonable bail conditions;
sureties;
reporting duties;
or restrictions against witness contact.
It could not justify continuation of unauthorised remand.
The Court emphasised that default bail is not a judicial declaration of innocence.
The police remain free to investigate and prosecute.
If strong evidence later emerges, ordinary applications concerning bail may be considered.
The immediate question is only whether the State has earned continued pre-charge-sheet custody by complying with the statutory timeline.
Since it had not, release followed as a matter of law once the accused offered bail.

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had no power to continue detention after expiry of sixty days without a police report.
The accused were entitled to default bail upon furnishing the required bonds.
The judgment established the mandatory character of Section 167(2).