The division bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar has held that an accused cannot be entitled to default bail when the first extension was not challenged & the second extension was passed in his presence. 

Narrating the facts, the bench said that the IO who had arrested the accused on 29th Jan. 2022 prayed for an extension beyond 90 days, which was granted. On 23rd April 2022 information of the same was given to the accused. On 22nd May 2022 in presence of the accused the IO again prayed for an extension.

In a bail application filed on 10th May 2022, it was argued that during the first extension grant, the accused was not present and thus he has the right to default bail. The counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution was aware of this fact. He argued that in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and ors. V State of Maharashtra and ors ,1994. It was held that a notice to the accused for the extension of investigation period was mandatory.

It was argued that failure to produce the accused at the extension of investigating period, entitles the accused to statuary bail as held in Jigar Alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v State of Gujarat 2022

Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta appearing for the State of Gujarat argued that in the Sanjay Dutt case, the supreme court held that the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur the accused is not entitled to written notice as the sole requirement is the production of the accused as per section 167(1) of CrPC.

The court held that when the accused was given information about the first extension of investigation period, he did not challenge it on any grounds. 

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1045­1046/2023

Qamar Ghani Usmani V. The state of Gujarat  

Click here to view/download the judgment