Criminal Procedure Code

Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam

(2017) 15 SCC 67

Facts

Rakesh Kumar Paul, Chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission, was arrested in a corruption case.
One offence carried imprisonment that could extend up to ten years.
The charge-sheet was not filed within sixty days.
He sought default bail.
The State argued that the ninety-day period applied because the offence was punishable “up to ten years.”
The accused argued that ninety days applies only where the offence carries:
death;
life imprisonment; or
a minimum sentence of at least ten years.

Whether an offence with a maximum sentence of ten years attracts the sixty-day or ninety-day default-bail period.
Whether default bail requires a formally drafted written application.

Under Section 167(2):
ninety days applies where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years;
sixty days applies to other offences.
“Not less than ten years” ordinarily refers to a statutory minimum of ten years.
An offence carrying a maximum of ten years but no ten-year minimum falls within the sixty-day category.
Courts should adopt a liberty-protective interpretation where penal-remand language is ambiguous.
Default bail is a fundamental statutory safeguard linked to Article 21.
The accused must indicate willingness to furnish bail.
No elaborate form is indispensable.
An oral request or application referring substantially to the expired period may be sufficient.
Courts should make unrepresented accused persons aware of the entitlement.

The relevant offence permitted imprisonment up to ten years but did not compel a minimum sentence of ten years.
The State’s interpretation treated:
“may extend to ten years”; and
“not less than ten years” as identical.
The majority rejected that approach.
Parliament deliberately used minimum-punishment language in the ninety-day clause.
Where the court could legally impose a sentence below ten years, the offence did not meet that description.
Therefore, the investigation period was sixty days.
That period had expired without a valid charge-sheet.
The Court also examined the manner in which the accused raised the claim.
Default bail concerns legality of continued custody.
It should not be defeated merely because:
the application used imperfect language;
counsel cited the wrong provision;
or the accused made an oral request.
Once the court is informed that:
the statutory period has expired;
no report has been filed;
and the accused is willing to furnish bail, it must consider the right.
The majority stressed that remand courts have an active duty to protect liberty, particularly where the accused lacks effective representation.

The Supreme Court held that the sixty-day period applied because the offence did not prescribe a minimum sentence of ten years.
Rakesh Kumar Paul was entitled to default bail.
The judgment also recognised that a substantially clear oral or written request may invoke the right.