Supreme Court of India
STATE (NCT) OF DELHIversusRAJEEV SHARMA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 456
- Decided
- 2 April 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The phrase ‘not less than 10 years’ must be interpreted as a minimum imprisonment threshold, and where a statute provides only a maximum sentence without a minimum, the provision does not trigger the 90‑day default bail rule, making the accused eligible for default bail after 60 days.
Summary
The State of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order granting bail to Rajeev Sharma, who was arrested under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 120B of the IPC. Sharma filed multiple bail applications, all of which were dismissed, and later invoked Section 167(2) of the CrPC claiming that the statutory period for default bail had elapsed. The key question was whether the phrase “imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years” in the proviso to Section 167(2) applies to an offence that prescribes a maximum sentence of 14 years but no minimum sentence. The Supreme Court, relying on Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam and M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, held that the provision refers to a minimum imprisonment threshold; in the absence of a minimum, the offence falls under the “any other offence” category, making the accused eligible for default bail after 60 days. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the term ‘imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years’ in clause (i) of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC includes offences that prescribe only a maximum punishment of 14 years without a minimum punishment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B
- Official Secrets Act, 1923s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) Cr.P.C would include an offence where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment is Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours – Statutory bail – Grant of – Bail applications filed by the respondent-accused against whom case registered u/ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s.120-B
Subjects
Statutory bailDefault bailNo minimum period of imprisonmentImprisonment for not less than 10 yearsDetention exceeding 90 daysDetention exceeding 60 days
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 617 : 2025 INSC 456
State (NCT) of Delhi
v.
Rajeev Sharma
(Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2021)
03 April 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less
than 10 years” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) Cr.P.C
would include an offence where the punishment of 14 years of
imprisonment is prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment
is prescribed for such offence.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Procedure
when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four
hours – Statutory bail – Grant of – Bail applications filed
by the respondent-accused against whom case registered
u/ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s.120-B
IPC – Dismissal of the applications – Respondent then filed
application u/s.167(2) seeking release on bail on the ground
that 60 days period had expired since he was arrested, and
the charge-sheet against him, was not filed – Application
dismissed however, held that the statutory bail would have
to be considered, if 60 days had elapsed since the day of
the remand – Revision by the State – Pending Revision, the
respondent filed a fresh petition u/s.167(2) which was also
dismissed – Respondent then filed revision petition, which
was allowed by the High Court and respondent was granted
bail – Correctness:
Held: As per clause(i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) the accused
is entitled to the benefit of default bail if the investigation has
not been completed in ninety days when it relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment
for a term of not less than ten years and in sixty days when it
618 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
relates to any other offence – Section 3 of the 1923 Act though,
prescribes maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no
minimum punishment provided under the said provision and
punishment for the offence punishable u/s. 5 is maximum up to
three years – On facts, since, the investigation was not completed
in sixty days, respondent had become entitled to the default
bail u/s.167(2)(a) – High Court rightly released the respondent
on bail – Official Secrets Act, 1923 – ss.3, 4, 5 – Penal Code,
1860 – s.120B. [Paras 6, 7, 10, 12]
Case Law Cited
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [2017] 8 SCR 785 : (2017)
15 SCC 67 – relied on.
M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence [2020] 12 SCR 915 – referred to.
List of Acts
Official Secrets Act, 1923; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Statutory bail; Default bail; No minimum period of imprisonment;
Imprisonment for not less than 10 years; Detention exceeding 90
days; Detention exceeding 60 days.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
608 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2020 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLRP No. 363 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Annam
Venkatesh.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Avi Singh, Sr. Adv., Shikhar Garg, Ajit Kumar Ekka.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 619
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 363/2020 whereby, the High Court
had disposed of the said petition by granting the respondent bail
subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
2. The broad facts leading to the present Appeal are that,
i. a case being FIR No.230/2020 came to be registered on
13.09.2020, at Police Station- Special Cell, Delhi against the
Respondent - Accused for the offence punishable under Section
3,4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred
as “the Act”) and the investigation was taken up by the Special
Cell, Delhi Police.
ii. During the course of the investigation, Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code was also added.
iii. The Respondent - Accused was arrested on 14.09.2020.
iv. A Bail Application was filed by the Respondent, along with the
other accused and the same came to be dismissed by the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts vide the
order dated 28.09.2020. The subsequent application seeking
regular bail moved by the Respondent - Accused, was also
dismissed by the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts vide the
order dated 19.10.2020.
v. It appears that the subsequent bail applications filed by the
Respondent - Accused, were also not granted by the concerned
Courts.
vi. Ultimately, on 14.11.2020, the Respondent - Accused moved an
application under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty
Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi seeking his release on
bail on the ground that 60 days period had expired since he
was arrested, and the charge-sheet against him, was not filed.
620 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
vii. The said Application filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., also
came to be dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty
Magistrate, Patiala House Courts on 14.11.2020 by observing
that the 60 days period was yet to be completed, however,
it was observed in the order that in terms of the clause(ii) to
proviso(a) of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the statutory bail would
have to be considered, if 60 days had elapsed since the day
of the remand.
viii. It appears that in view of the said observations made in the
order dated 14.11.2020, the Appellant - State (NCT) of Delhi
on 15.11.2020, filed a Revision Petition being CR No. 57/2020
before the ASJ, Patiala House Courts.
ix. Pending the Revision Petition filed by the Appellant - State (NCT)
of Delhi, the Respondent - Accused, on 15.11.2020, filed a fresh
petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on similar grounds as
that of the earlier one before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty
Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi.
x. The fresh petition filed by the Respondent also came to be
dismissed by the concerned Court on 16.11.2020.
xi. Being aggrieved by the said Order, Respondent approached
the High Court of Delhi by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.
363/2020 under Sections 397 read with Sections - 401 and
482 of Cr.P.C. The said Criminal Revision Petition came to be
allowed by the High Court.
xii. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant - State (NCT of
Delhi) has filed the present Appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the
material on record.
4. The short question that falls for consideration before this Court is,
whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years”
in clause(i) of the proviso(a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C would include
an offence where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is
prescribed, but no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed
for such offence?
5. The relevant provision of Section 167(2) reads as under: -
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 621
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be
completed in twenty-four hours. —
(1) …………………………………………………….
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is
forwarded under this section may, whether he has or
has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time,
authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as
such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen
days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the
case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention
unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded
to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that —
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused
person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond
the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate
grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise
the detention of the accused person in custody under this
paragraph for a total period exceeding —
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other
offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety
days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused
person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to
and does furnish bail, and every person released on
bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so
released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for
the purposes of that Chapter;
(b) to (c) ……………………………………………….
(3) to (6) ……………………………………………….”
6. From the bare reading of the said clause(i) of the proviso(a) to
Section 167(2), it clearly appears that the accused would be entitled
622 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the benefit of default bail if the investigation has not been completed
in ninety days when it relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten
years and in sixty days when it relates to any other offence.
7. In the instant case, the FIR against the respondent, was registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act read
with Section 120B of IPC. Section-3 of the said Act though, prescribes
maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no minimum punishment
provided under the said provision. The punishment prescribed for the
offence punishable under Section-5 of the said Act, is maximum up
to three years. Since, the investigation was not completed in sixty
days, the Respondent had become entitled to the default bail under
Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C.
8. In our opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the majority
decision of three Judge Bench in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of
Assam.1 The relevant part thereof reads as under: -
“24. In the context of the word “punishable” occurring in
clause (i) and the meaning attached to this word taken
from several dictionaries, this Court held in Bhupinder
Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh, (2006) 6 SCC
277: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 101] that where a minimum and
maximum sentence is prescribed, both are imposable
depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore, if an
offence is punishable with imprisonment that may extend
up to or beyond or including 10 years, then the period
available for completing investigations would be 90 days
before the provision for “default bail” kicks in. It was said
in para 15 of the Report: (SCC p. 282)
“15. Where minimum and maximum sentences are
prescribed, both are imposable depending on the
facts of the cases. It is for the court, after recording
conviction, to impose appropriate sentence. It cannot,
therefore, be accepted that only the minimum sentence
is imposable and not the maximum sentence. Merely
1 (2017) 15 SCC 67
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 623
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
because minimum sentence is provided that does
not mean that the sentence imposable is only the
minimum sentence.”
25. While it is true that merely because a minimum
sentence is provided for in the statute it does not mean
that only the minimum sentence is imposable. Equally,
there is also nothing to suggest that only the maximum
sentence is imposable. Either punishment can be imposed
and even something in between. Where does one strike
a balance? It was held that it is eventually for the court
to decide what sentence should be imposed given the
range available. Undoubtedly, the legislature can bind the
sentencing court by laying down the minimum sentence
(not less than) and it can also lay down the maximum
sentence. If the minimum is laid down, the sentencing
Judge has no option but to give a sentence “not less
than” that sentence provided for. Therefore, the words “not
less than” occurring in clause (i) to proviso (a) of Section
167(2) CrPC (and in other provisions) must be given their
natural and obvious meaning, which is to say, not below a
minimum threshold and in the case of Section 167 CrPC
these words must relate to an offence punishable with a
minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment.”
9. The said ratio laid down in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) has been
further followed by this Court in the case of M. Ravindran vs. The
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Criminal
Appeal No. 699 of 2020).
10. In view of the afore-stated legal position, which clinches the issue
raised in the present Appeal, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has rightly followed the aforestated decisions and released
the Respondent on bail.
11. It may also be noted that this Appeal is pending before this Court
since last four years and the benefit of default bail granted to the
Respondent - Accused by the High Court has continued till this date.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Appeal. However,
since the matter is pending before the Trial Court for framing of
624 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
charge, the Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the trial
as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.
13. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Statutory bail"Sign in to search