Facts

In the instant matter Irfan Moiuddeen Saiyyed v. State of Maharashtra The defendants were accused of persuading the complainant to put money into Global Digital Crypto Currency (or “GDCC”) in exchange for tempting rewards. The accused individuals persuaded the complainant to invest the money in the GDCC by claiming that it was managed and controlled by them and that it would likely be implemented in December 2022, alluring him with the prospect of significant rewards. As a result, the complainant made a substantial investment, but the price of the cryptocurrency was far lower than what the accused parties said.

The defendants were accused of persuading the complainant to put money into Global Digital Crypto Currency (GDCC) in exchange for tempting rewards. The accused individuals persuaded the complainant to invest the money in the GDCC by claiming that it was managed and controlled by them and that it would likely be implemented in December 2022, alluring him with the prospect of significant rewards. As a result, the complainant made a substantial investment, but the price of the cryptocurrency was far lower than what the accused parties said. On the other hand, the Police informed the Sessions Court in a letter dated March 27, 2023, that Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC had been added to the offence, just a few days before the 60-day deadline to file the charge sheet was set to expire. Later, on March 31, 2023, the Investigating Officer wrote to the Additional Sessions Judge requesting an extension of the 30-day deadline for submitting the investigation’s final report as required by Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The ASJ decided after applying the Sections. To obtain default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.PC, the accused persons went to court after being resentful of the ASJ’s ruling denying their request for relief.

Issue 

Whether it is accurate to assume that the duration of judicial custody has automatically been extended by merely addressing a letter to the Court and adding new Sections for which the penalty is life in prison or a term of imprisonment of at least ten years?

Analysis of court decision 

The accused were granted default bail by the Bombay High Court Single Judge Bench of Justice S.G. Mehare after their motion was approved. The prosecution cannot request an extension of custody by a simple letter addressed to the Court for a period longer than that allowed by Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court ruled, absent the submission of the remand papers without the knowledge of the accused.

The prosecution failed to present any evidence before the court that the accused fit into any of the seven categories listed in Section 409 of the IPC, the court further stated. The Investigating Officer cannot, the Court ruled, ask for an extension of time to file a charge sheet since the period for filing the charge sheet must be established from the evidence and files presented before the Magistrate. Furthermore, the court ruled that “no subterfuge should have been used to defeat the indefeasible right” once the power to demand default bail arose. 

The Court observed that because the charge sheet was not filed within the allotted 60 days, the Magistrate’s extension of judicial custody constituted functus officio. The Court ruled that once the deadline for filing the charge sheet has passed, the Magistrate no longer has the authority to prolong the remand. Due to the Investigating Officer’s failure to submit the charge sheet within the 60-day window as required by Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court granted the Accused Persons’ application and granted them default bail.