The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has instructed the Registrar General to organize an orientation program on Fundamental Rights for all judicial officers in the District Courts of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. This directive came after a Magistrate issued an order requiring the submission of a bail bond within 45 minutes following the issuance of a default bail order. If this condition was not met, the Magistrate canceled the petitioner's bail.

In this particular case, the petitioner faced charges of extortion. However, when the police failed to present a charge sheet within the legally mandated 60-day period, the petitioner applied for default bail as allowed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petitioner submitted the bail application on the 61st day, which was granted, but it came with the condition that he must provide a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000 on the same day. Unfortunately, the petitioner was unable to meet this requirement within the given time frame, leading to the cancellation of his bail.

Subsequently, in the revision process, a learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) upheld the original Magistrate's order. To challenge this decision, the petitioner has now filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to set aside the order issued by the ASJ.

The Hon'ble Court underscored the well-established principle regarding the right to default bail as outlined in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), including the authority to impose conditions on it. In support of this, the Court referenced the case of Uday Mohan Lal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court of India clarified that an accused individual can exercise their legal right to seek bail once the stipulated time has elapsed, provided that no chargesheet has been filed. To do so, the accused must express their willingness to furnish the required bail as instructed by the court, and it must be verified that no chargesheet has been submitted within the specified time frame following their arrest.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure strictly prohibits the detention of an accused in custody beyond the duration specified in the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 167 of the CrPC. The only exception to this rule is when the situation defined in Explanation-1 occurs. This exception arises when the accused fails to furnish the necessary bail, resulting in the forfeiture of their right to default bail upon the filing of the chargesheet.

The Court also drew upon the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, where the Supreme Court of India provided valuable guidance. In this case, the Supreme Court made it clear that when it comes to matters of personal liberty, the Court's primary focus should be on safeguarding personal freedom rather than getting entangled in technicalities. Additionally, the Court highlighted that while it is within the bounds of the law to place conditions on a granted default bail, these conditions must not be excessive, unworkable, or burdensome. They should be reasonable and fair in order to uphold the principles of justice and personal liberty.

In the current writ petition, the petitioner's request was granted, and as a result, the petitioner was released on default bail.