Supreme Court of India Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State Of Assam on 16 August, 2017 Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3948, 2017 (15) SCC 67, AIR 2017 SC( CRI) 1475, (2017) 4 KER LJ 8, (2017) 4 KER LT 284, (2017) 4 PAT LJR 53, (2017) 68 OCR 1, (2017) 9 SCALE 24, (2017) 101 ALLCRIC 287, 2017 CALCRILR 3 319, (2017) 4 ALLCRILR 275, (2017) 3 RECCRIR 996, (2017) 3 ALLCRIR 2474, (2018) 2 CRIMES 62, (2017) 242 DLT 79, (2017) 178 ALLINDCAS 75 (SC), (2017) 4 JLJR 37, (2017) 3 DLT(CRL) 879, (2017) 5 GAU LT 1, (2017) 3 CURCRIR 371, (2017) 4 MAD LJ(CRI) 62, (2017) 2 ORISSA LR 817, (2017) 3 UC 1756, 2018 (1) SCC (CRI) 401 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 2009 OF 2017 Rakesh Kumar Paul .…Petitioner versus State of Assam …Respondent WITH SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 2176 OF 2017 Rakesh Kumar Paul .…Petitioner versus State of Assam …Respondent JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. In Measure for Measure the Duke complains (in the given situation): “And liberty plucks justice by the nose”. 1 The truth is that personal liberty cannot be compromised at the altar of what the State might perceive as justice – justice for one might be perceived as injustice for another. We are therefore unable to agree with learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not entitled to his liberty through what is commonly referred to as ‘default bail’ or Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2017.08.16 15:58:55 IST that the justice of the case should persuade us to decide otherwise. Reason: 1 Act 1 Scene III line 2032 1 2. The facts in these petitions are not in dispute and we need not go into them in any great detail since we are really concerned with the interpretation of the words “imprisonment for a term not less than ten years” appearing in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended in 1978. A few facts 3. A First Information Report No. 936 of 2016 was lodged on 27th October, 2016 in respect of allegations made under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Although the petitioner was not named in the First Information Report, investigations seemed to implicate him in a very large and structured conspiracy. Accordingly, on 5th November, 2016 the petitioner was taken into custody pending further investigation. 4. Ordinarily, the maximum period of detention during the course of investigation (without a charge sheet or challan being filed) would be 60 days in terms of clause (ii) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’). In the petitioner’s case, this period would come to an end on 3rd January, 2017. However according to the State, since the petitioner had committed offences which could result in “imprisonment for a term not less than ten years” he could be kept in custody for a period of 90 days in terms of clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of 2 the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the question before us is whether, pending investigation, the petitioner could be kept in custody for a maximum period of 60 days in terms of clause (ii) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. or for 90 days in terms of clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. without a charge sheet being filed. 5. On 20th December, 2016 (before the expiry of 60 days), the petitioner applied for bail before the Special Judge dealing with cases relating to offences under the PC Act. His application was rejected. 6. Subsequently, on or about 11th January, 2017 (after the expiry of 60 days of detention but before the expiry of 90 days of detention), the petitioner applied for bail b