The Supreme Court, in a rather unusual order on May 12, directed lower courts to decide pending default bail applications without relying on its own judgment of April 26.
A judgment of the Supreme Court is considered the law of the land. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within India.
The April 26 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria versus Union of India had held that central agencies cannot deny accused persons their right to default bail by filing multiple supplementary chargesheets and seeking renewed custody. The judgment held that “the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution” to protect accused persons from the “unfettered and arbitrary power of the State”.
According to Section 167(2) CrPC, an accused is entitled to default bail if the investigating agency failed to file a final chargesheet within 60 days from the date of remand. For certain categories of offences, the stipulated period can be extended to 90 days.
The April judgment, delivered by a Division Bench led by Justice Krishna Murari, had come in a petition by Ritu Chhabaria, whose husband, Sanjay, was named in a corruption case. The CBI, which had arrested him in April 2022, got his custody renewed from time to time by filing multiple supplementary chargesheets. He was never released on default bail.
Following the judgment, the government, through the Enforcement Directorate (ED), moved an urgent application in the apex court to “recall” the Ritu Chhabaria judgment. The ED argued that the judgment contradicted the Supreme Court’s own past verdicts. The central agency backed the recall application by separately filing an appeal against the default bail granted by the Delhi High Court to Manpreet Singh Talwar, an accused in a money laundering case who relied on the Ritu Chhabaria verdict. The ED argued that the April 26 judgment would not apply to special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
On May 1, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud directed courts to “defer” any decision on default bail pleas filed on the strength of the Ritu Chhabaria judgment. On May 4, the court extended its interim order to May 12.
When the case came up on Friday, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud that the May 1 order was “curtailing the rights” of undertrial prisoners seeking default bail.
Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that the May 1 order had not prevented courts from deciding default bail pleas “independent of the Ritu Chhabaria judgment”.
“We clarify that the interim order of this court on May 1, 2023 shall not preclude any trial court/High Court from considering an application for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC independent of and without relying on the judgment of April 26, 2023 [Ritu Chhabaria case],” the Supreme Court clarified on Friday.
The government is yet to file a review petition against the April 26 judgment.
A recent statement issued by lawyers’ NGO, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR), led by advocate Prashant Bhushan, had asked why the government chose to file a recall application instead of a review petition against the judgment. It had urged the Chief Justice’s Bench to suo motu withdraw its May 1 and May 4 orders.
