Rajeev Kuchchhal vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to default bail. It was an admitted fact that on 6.9.2019, the Investigating Officer moved an application to change the remand, and the Magistrate subsequently altered the remand to include only offenses under Sections 420, 466, 468 IPC, and Section 132 CGST Act. Crucially, on this date, offenses under Sections 467 and 471 IPC were no longer in existence against the applicant. The Court found that the Magistrate erred by reckoning the charge sheet filing period based on the initially alleged offenses (including Section 467 IPC), instead of the offenses for which the applicant was in custody on 6.9.2019. Since 60 days had elapsed from the arrest (21.6.2019) and no charge sheets were filed by 6.9.2019, the indefeasible right to default bail had accrued to the applicant, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision in *Rakesh Kumar Paul*. The lower revisional court also failed to consider this, dismissing the revisions on maintainability. The Court reasoned that the detention of the applicant was unauthorized, and his indefeasible right could not be defeated by subsequent charge sheet filing. The impugned orders of the Magistrate were quashed, and the applicant was directed to be released on default bail.

Facts

The applicant, Rajeev Kuchchhal, filed applications under Section 482 CrPC to quash orders dated 6.9.2019 and 19.9.2019. These orders were passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge, respectively, concerning FIRs lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 132 CGST Act. The applicant was arrested on 20.6.2019. On 4.9.2019, the Investigating Officer sought to change the remand to exclude Sections 467, 471, and 120-B IPC, focusing on Sections 420, 466, 468 IPC, and Section 132 CGST Act. On 6.9.2019, the Magistrate changed the remand accordingly. On the same day, the applicant applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, arguing that charge sheets were not filed within 60 days, as the offenses then remaining were punishable for less than ten years. The Magistrate rejected this, considering the initial inclusion of Section 467 IPC. The applicant's criminal revisions were dismissed by the Sessions Judge on maintainability grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC when the Investigating Officer amended the charges to offenses punishable for less than ten years after the initial 60-day period had elapsed, and the applicant had applied for default bail on the same day the remand was altered. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 167(2) CrPC). Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant argued that as soon as the remand was changed on 6.9.2019 to include only offenses punishable for less than ten years, and charge sheets were not filed within 60 days of arrest (first remand on 21.6.2019), an indefeasible right to default bail accrued. Subsequent filing of charge sheets or cognizance would not extinguish this right. Reliance was placed on *Sanjay Dutt vs. State through C.B.I. Bombay(II)*, *Achpal and others vs. State of Rajasthan*, *Rajeev Chaudhary vs. State (NCT) of Delhi*, and *Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam*. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The State contended that the FIR was lodged for Section 467 IPC, punishable for more than ten years, and thus the period for filing charge sheet was 90 days. The charge sheet was submitted on 11.9.2019, and cognizance was taken. The trial court rightly rejected the default bail application. The orders passed by the Magistrate were not revisable, and the revisional court's order was not illegal or infirm.