Supreme Court: When An Offence Carries Imprisonment For 10 Years Or More, Only Then Section 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC Is Applicable
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the Order of the High Court that granted bail to the Respondent in a case involving the Official Secrets Act.
The Supreme Court reiterated that only when an offence carries imprisonment up to or beyond 10 years, only then Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the CrPC will be applicable.
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the Order of the Delhi High Court that granted bail to the Respondent in a case involving the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The Court had to determine whether imprisonment for a term ‘not less than 10 years’ in Section 167(2) of the CrPC included offences where the maximum punishment is 14 years, but no minimum is specified.
A Bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, “In view of the afore-stated legal position, which clinches the issue raised in the present Appeal, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly followed the aforestated decisions and released the Respondent on bail.”
ASG Suryaprakash V Raju represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Avi Singh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered against the Respondent for offenses under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act. During the investigation, Section 120B of the IPC was added. The Respondent was arrested. His bail applications were initially dismissed by the Magistrate and the Trial Court
Subsequently, the Respondent filed an application under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, seeking bail on the ground that the 60-day period for filing the charge-sheet had expired. This application was also dismissed, leading the Respondent to approach the High Court, which granted him bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had held, "The Court said that in its opinion the use of words 'or more' gives a clear indication that the period of 90 days was relatable to an offence punishable with minimum imprisonment for a period of not less than 10 years, if not more. The words or more were deleted when Section 167 Cr.P.C. was enacted, perhaps felt to be superfluous in the context of the words 'not less than'...This gives an answer to the issues raised in this petition that the offence must have the imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more only then Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. would be applicable."
The Court examined Section 167(2), noting that it entitles an accused to default bail if the investigation is not completed within 90 days for offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term "not less than" ten years, and within 60 days for other offenses.
In this case, the Bench pointed out that the Respondent was charged under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, with Section 3 prescribing a maximum punishment of 14 years but no minimum.
The Supreme Court relied on the three-Judge Bench decision, Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017), which clarified that "not less than" in Section 167(2) of the CrPC refers to offenses with a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment. It was held, “where a minimum and maximum sentence is prescribed, both are imposable depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment that may extend up to or beyond or including 10 years, then the period available for completing investigations would be 90 days before the provision for “default bail” kicks in.”
Applying this interpretation, the Court held that since Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act does not prescribe a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment, the Respondent was entitled to default bail as the investigation exceeded 60 days.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Appeal. However, since the matter is pending before the Trial Court for framing of charge, the Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 456)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASG SV Raju; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocate Annam Venkatesh
Respondent: Senior Advocate Avi Singh; AOR Ajit Kumar Ekka; Advocate Shikhar Garg
