Qamar Ghani Usmani Versus The State of Gujarat

Qamar Ghani Usmani Versus The State of Gujarat 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1045­1046/2023
SLP (CRL) NOS. 011196 ­ 011197 / 2022
Qamar Ghani Usmani  ...Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Gujarat      …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated
23.09.2022   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal
Page 1 of 28
Nos. 1215/2022 and 1216/2022, by which,
the Division Bench of the High Court has
dismissed the said appeals and has refused
to   release   the   appellant   –   accused   on
statutory   bail   (default   bail)   under   Section
167(2) of the Cr.PC, the original accused has
preferred the present appeals.   
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a
nutshell are as under: ­ 
3.1 That the accused came to be arrested on
29.01.2022. The 90 days period as provided
under Section 167 of the Cr.PC, therefore,
was to expire on 29.04.2022. However, on
22.04.2022, the Investigating Officer prayed
for   extension   of   time   to   complete   the
investigation which came to be granted by
the   learned   Trial   Court   by   granting
extension of 30 days period. The accused
Page 2 of 28
came to be informed about the extension on
23.04.2022   itself.   On   22.05.2022,   the
Investigating Officer again prayed for further
extension which came to be allowed by the
learned Trial Court on 22.05.2022. At this
stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   on
22.05.2022,   the   second   extension   was
granted in the presence of the accused. In
the  meantime,  the  accused submitted the
default   bail   application   on   10.05.2022   on
the ground that at the time when the first
extension was granted on 22.04.2022, the
same was not in the presence of the accused
and the accused was not kept present and
therefore, first extension was bad in law and
therefore, the accused acquired right to get
the default bail on 10.05.2022. The learned
Trial Court rejected the said application(s).
Page 3 of 28
The Division Bench of the High Court by the
impugned   judgment   and   order   has
dismissed the appeals. Hence, the present
appeals   at   the   instance   of   the   original
accused. 
4. Shri Mehmood Pracha, learned counsel has
appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri
Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has
appeared on behalf of the respondent – State
of Gujarat. 
4.1 Shri Pracha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   accused   has   vehemently
submitted that as such the judgment and
order which has been relied upon by the
Division Bench of the High Court has been
subsequently set aside by this Court in the
case of  Jigar  alias  Jimmy  Pravinchandra
Page 4 of 28
Adatiya   Vs.   State   of   Gujarat   2022   SCC
OnLine SC 1290. 
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Pracha,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused   that   it   is   admitted   by   the
prosecution   that   the   appellant   was   not
produced before the learned Trial Court at
the time of consideration of application for
first extension of period of investigation. It is
submitted   that   in   the   case   of  Hitendra
Vishnu   Thakur   and   Ors.   Vs.   State   of
Maharashtra  and  Ors.   (1994)  4  SCC  602
and in the case of  Sanjay  Dutt  Vs.  State
through   CBI,   Bombay   (II)   (1994)   5   SCC
410,  notice to the accused at the time of
consideration of application for extension of
period of investigation has been held to be
Page 5 of 28
mandatory. It is submitted that in the case
of  Sanjay   Dutt   (supra),   this   Court   has
further interpreted to mean that a written
notice is not mandatory but the presence of
the   accused   suffices.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore, even as per the law laid­down by
this   Court   in   the   case   of  Sanjay   Dutt
(supra)  at   the   time   of   consideration   of
application   for   extension   of   period   of
investigation, the presence of the accused is
must. It is submitted that therefore, in the
present case when the first extension was
granted   on   22.04.2022   admittedly   the
accused   was   not   produced   before   the
learned   Trial   Court,   the   first   extension
before itself is illegal and not an extension in
the eye of law and therefore, thereafter when
Page 6 of 28
the   accused   filed   the   application(s)   under
Section   167(2)   of   the   Cr.PC   for   default
bail/statutory   bail,   the   accused   had
acquired a indefeasible right for release on
statutory bail as by the time 90 days period
was over and the first extension is to be
ignored. 
4.3 It is further submitted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the accused that as
observed and held by this Court in the case
of  Sayed  Mohd.   Ahmed  Kazmi   Vs.  State
(2012)   12   SCC   1  extension   of   period   of
investigation from retrospective effect, after
the initial order has been set aside, is not
permissible. 
4.4 It is further submitted by learned counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused   that
Page 7 of 28
recently   in   the  case  of  Jigar   (supra)  this
Court   after   taking   into   consideration   the
decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   cases   of
Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur   (supra)  and
Sanjay   Dutt   (supra),  has   specifically
reiterated   the   proposition   that   failure   to
produce the accused at the time of extension
of   period   of   investigation   renders   such
extension   bad   in   law   and   entitles   the
accused to statutory bail. 
4.5 Making the above submissions and heavily
relying upon the decisions of this Court in
the   cases   of  Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur
(supra);  Sayed   Mohd.   Ahmed   Kazmi
(supra);   Sanjay   Dutt   (supra)  and  Jigar
(supra),   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the   present
Page 8 of 28
appeals and direct the respondent to release
the appellant – accused on statutory bail. 
5. While   opposing   the   present   appeals,   Shri
Tushar   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor   General
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   has
vehemently   submitted   that   as   such   the
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra)  has been
subsequently watered down by this Court in
the   case   of  Sanjay   Dutt   (supra).   It   is
submitted that the view taken by this Court
in   the   case   of  Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur
(supra) that at the time of extension of time
for investigation, a notice to the accused is
required to be given by the Designated Court
before it grants any extension is no longer a
good law in view of the subsequent decision
Page 9 of 28
of this Court in the case of  Sanjay   Dutt
(supra).  It is submitted that in the case of
Sanjay   Dutt   (supra)  this   Court   has
explained   the   decision   in   the   case   of
Hitendra   Vishnu  Thakur   (supra)  and has
observed and held that the only requirement
is the production of the accused before the
Court in accordance with Section 167(1) of
the   Cr.PC   and   that   the   accused   is   not
entitled to written notice giving reasons for
the extension. 
5.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of  Jigar
(supra)  is   concerned,   it   is   vehemently
submitted   that   as   such   the   said   decision
requires   reconsideration   by   the   Larger
Bench as in the said decision this Court has
Page 10 of 28
not taken into consideration Section 465 of
the Cr.PC. It is submitted that this Court
has failed to consider the law laid­down by
this Court in the case of Rambeer Shokeen
Vs.  State   (2018)  4  SCC  405, in which it
was   categorically   held   that   the   accused
persons   are   entitled   to   the   right   of   the
default   bail   only   after   rejection   of   the
application for extension of time period for
investigation or when the chargesheet is not
filed within the prescribed time. 
5.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise
as observed and held by this Court in the
case   of  Narender   G.   Goel   Vs.   State   of
Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 the accused
has   no   right   to   be  heard  at   the   stage   of
investigation and more particularly, at the
Page 11 of 28
stage of extension of period for investigation.
It is submitted that as observed and held by
this Court, the accused is not entitled to
have the reasonings for extension of period
of   investigation   because   accused   has   no
right   to   be   heard   at   the   stage   of
investigation. 
5.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the State that even otherwise, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant is not entitled to any relief(s) as
prayed, more particularly, the statutory bail.
It is submitted that the first extension was
granted   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   on
22.04.2022.   The   accused   was   informed
about   extension   of   time   for   investigation
immediately   on   the   very   next   day   i.e.,
Page 12 of 28
23.04.2022.   It   is   submitted   that   nothing
was   done   by   the   accused   even   on
29.04.2022 (when the 90 days period was
over).   It   is   submitted   that   though   the
accused was informed about the extension
of time for investigation on 23.04.2022, till
10.05.2022   he   did   not   challenge   the
extension   of   time   for   investigation   for   a
further   period   of   30   days   granted   on
22.04.2022.   It   is   submitted   that   even
thereafter when the second extension was
sought and granted on 22.05.2022 on which
date the accused was present and in whose
presence   the   extension   was   granted,   no
grievance was made by the accused on the
legality and validity of earlier order dated
22.04.2022   granting   the   extension   for   a
further period of 30 days. It is submitted
Page 13 of 28
that   therefore,   once   the   accused   failed   to
challenge the first order of extension dated
22.04.2022 on whatever grounds available
and   allowed   the   period   of   extension   and
thereafter   at   the   time   when   the   second
extension   was   granted   the   accused   was
present and he did not make any grievance
with respect to the first extension granted
on 22.04.2022, thereafter, it is not open for
the accused to make any grievance on the
grant   of   first   extension   granted   on
22.04.2022. 
5.4 It is submitted that therefore, at the time
when   the   accused   preferred   application(s)
for   statutory/default   bail   on   10.05.2022,
there was already an extension of time for
investigation by the learned Trial Court vide
order   dated   22.04.2022,   which   was   not
Page 14 of 28
challenged by the accused and therefore, the
application(s)   for   default/statutory   bail
during the period of extension would not be
maintainable at all as the said application(s)
were made during the period of extension for
investigation. It is submitted by Shri Mehta,
learned Solicitor General that even in the
application(s)   for   default/statutory   bail
preferred   on   10.05.2022,   the   accused   did
not   even   disclose   that   the   learned   Trial
Court   had   granted   the   extension   for
investigation   vide   order   dated   22.04.2022
which   as   such   was   communicated   to   the
accused on 23.04.2022. It is submitted that
therefore, in view of the above facts, none of
the decisions of this Court relied upon on
behalf of the accused shall be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted
Page 15 of 28
that so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Sayed
Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi (supra) is concerned,
it is submitted by learned Solicitor General
that on facts the said decision shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
It is submitted that in the case before this
Court, in fact the extension was challenged
before the Sessions Court and the extension
was held to be bad in law. 
5.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed
to dismiss the present appeals.
6. We   have   heard   Shri   Mehmood   Pracha,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused – appellant and Shri Tushar Mehta,
learned   Solicitor   General   appearing   on
behalf of the State of Gujarat.
Page 16 of 28
6.1 The short question which is posed for the
consideration of this Court is whether in the
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the
appellant   shall   be   entitled   to   the
statutory/default bail under Section 167(2)
of the Cr.PC on the ground that at the time
when the extension of time for completing
the   investigation   was   prayed   by   the
investigating   agency   and   granted   by   the
Trial   Court   the   accused   was   not   kept
present?
6.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant – accused has heavily relied upon
the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur   (supra);   Sanjay
Dutt  (supra); Sayed Mohd.  Ahmed  Kazmi
Page 17 of 28
(supra)  and on the recent decision of this
Court in the case of Jigar (supra).      
6.2.1 In   the   case   of  Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur
(supra), this Court observed and held that
when a report is submitted by the Public
Prosecutor to the Designated Court for grant
of extension, its notice should be issued to
the   accused   before   granting   such   an
extension so that the accused may have an
opportunity to oppose the extension on all
legitimate   and   legal   grounds   available   to
him. 
6.2.2 However,   thereafter,   the   decision   of   this
Court   in   the   case   of  Hitendra   Vishnu
Thakur (supra)  fell for consideration before
this   Court   in   the   case   of  Sanjay   Dutt
Page 18 of 28
(supra) and the view taken by this Court in
the   case   of  Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur
(supra)  as above, has not been accepted by
the Constitution Bench of this Court and it
is observed and held in the case of  Sanjay
Dutt (supra) that a notice to the accused is
not required to be given by the Designated
Court   before   it   grants   any   extension   for
completing   the   investigation.   Meaning
thereby, the accused is to be kept present
before   the   Court   when   it   grants   any
extension for completing the investigation.
The view taken by this Court in the case of
Hitendra   Vishnu   Thakur   (supra)  that   a
notice is to be given to the accused so that
he can oppose the extension has not been
accepted by the Constitution Bench of this
Page 19 of 28
Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra). As
such under the Scheme of Cr.PC and on the
report   submitted   by   the   Investigating
Agency,   prayer   for   extension   of   time   for
completing investigation is   subject to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court whether
to grant further extension or not. The Court
is to be satisfied on the grounds on which
the extension is sought. 
6.2.3 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Sayed
Mohd.   Ahmed   Kazmi   (supra)  by   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
is concerned, at the outset, it is required to
be noted that the said decision shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
In the case before this Court, in fact, the
Page 20 of 28
extension   granted   by   the   learned   Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged on
the   ground   that   the   learned   Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate had no competence
to   extend   the   judicial   custody   of   the
accused.   The   learned   Additional   Sessions
Judge   accepted   the   same.   However,
thereafter,   a   fresh   extension   was   sought
which   was   beyond   the   period   prescribed
under   Section   167   of   the   Cr.PC   and
therefore, this Court observed and held that
extension   for   period   of   investigation   from
retrospective effect shall not be permissible. 
6.3 Similarly, even the decision of this Court in
the case of Rambeer Shokeen (supra) relied
upon by learned Solicitor General shall also
not be applicable to the facts of the case on
Page 21 of 28
hand.   In   the   case   of  Rambeer   Shokeen
(supra)  pending   application   by   the
Investigating  Agency  for  extension   of  time
for completing the investigation, the accused
made   an   application   for   statutory/default
bail  and  to   that   this  Court  observed and
held   that   the   application   filed   by   the
Investigating  Agency  for  extension   of  time
for completing the investigation which was
prayed   in   time   kept   pending   ought   to   be
decided first by the Court. 
6.4 Thus, sum and substance of law laid­down
by this Court in the cases of  Sanjay  Dutt
(supra)  and  Jigar   (supra)  are   that   while
considering   the   application   by   the
Investigating  Agency  for  extension   of  time
for completing the investigation beyond the
Page 22 of 28
period   prescribed   under   Section   167(2)   of
the Cr.PC the accused is to be given notice
and/or   is   to   be   kept   present   before   the
Court, so that, the accused had knowledge
that the extension is sought and granted. 
6.5 However, in the facts and circumstances of
the   case,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the
appellant   is   not   entitled   to   the   relief   of
statutory/default bail. In the present case
the facts are glaring which are as under: ­
……The accused was arrested on
29.01.2022. The 90 days provided
under   Section   167   Cr.PC   thus
would   expire   on   29.04.2022.
Within the period of 90 days i.e.,
on 22.04.2022, the  IO  submitted
the report and prayed for extension
of   time   for   completing   the
Page 23 of 28
investigation   which   came   to   be
allowed by the learned Trial Court
by granting extension of 30 days
period. It is true that for whatever
reason, the accused was not kept
present   at   the   time   when   the
learned Trial Court considered the
report   submitted   by   the   IO   for
extension   of   time   for   completing
the   investigation.   However,   the
accused   came   to   be   informed
about   the   extension   on   the   very
next   day   i.e.,   23.04.2022.   The
accused   did   not   challenge   the
extension   on   any   ground   which
may be available to him and/or did
not make any grievance that such
an   extension   is   illegal   and/or
Page 24 of 28
contrary to law. On 10.05.2022, he
made   the   present   application   for
default bail/statutory bail on the
ground   that   the   chargesheet   has
not been filed within the period of
90   days.   At   this   stage,   it   is
required   to   be   noted   that   at   the
time when the present application
for   default/statutory   bail   was
made   on   10.05.2022,   there   was
already an extension of time by the
learned Trial Court which as such
was in existence and the extension
was   up   to   22.05.2022.   At   this
stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted
that   though   informed   on
23.04.2022 about the extension of
time   for   completing   the
Page 25 of 28
investigation, the accused did not
disclose   the   same   in   the
application   for   default
bail/statutory   bail   submitted   on
10.05.2022.   That   thereafter,   on
22.05.2022,   IO   again   submitted
the report for further extension of
time   for   completing   the
investigation   which   came   to   be
allowed/granted   by   the   learned
Trial Court which as such was in
the presence of the accused and at
that   time,   the   accused   remained
present. Neither the first extension
nor the second extension came to
be challenged by the accused.”
7. Therefore, in the aforesaid peculiar facts and
circumstances   of   the   case,   when   two
Page 26 of 28
extensions granted by the Court which are
not challenged and at the time when the
default   bail   application   was   made   on
10.05.2022 there was already an extension
and even thereafter, also there was a second
extension   which   was   in   presence   of   the
accused   and   thereafter,   when   the
chargesheet has been filed within the period
of extension, the accused is not entitled to
be   released   on   statutory/default   bail   as
prayed.   Therefore,   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   we   are   in
agreement   with   the   ultimate   conclusion
reached   by   the   High   Court   denying   the
statutory/default bail to the accused. 
8. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated   above   and,   in   the   facts,   and
circumstances   of   the   case   narrated
Page 27 of 28
hereinabove, the appellant is not entitled to
the benefit of statutory/default bail. Under
the   circumstances,   the   present   appeals
deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed. However, it will be open for the
accused to prayer for regular bail which may
be considered in accordance with law and
on   its   own   merits.   Present   appeals   stand
dismissed accordingly.  
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 10, 2023
Page 28 of 28

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India