Factual Background 

In the case of Ritu Chhabaria vs Union of India that an FIR was filed in accordance with Sections 7, 12, and 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The writ petitioner’s husband was included as a prosecution witness in the additional chargesheet dated 26.05.2020, which was one of two supplementary chargesheets that were later filed. Later, numerous additional extra chargesheets were submitted, but none of them contained the accused’s name. The inquiry was subsequently handed off to another investigating officer, and on April 28, 2022, CBI detained the suspect and placed him in custody. The accused’s remand under Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was then repeated and occasionally continued, and he was never freed on default bail. Subsequently, numerous further supplementary chargesheets were also submitted.

The Argument advanced from both parties 

According to the petitioner’s attorney, the trial court should not have issued a summons and remanded the petitioner’s husband under Section 309 Cr.PC. because the petitioner’s husband’s name was not included in the complaint and the investigation was still ongoing. Due to the accused’s continuous detention, because the inquiry was not finished, their fundamental rights have been violated. It was contended that if the investigation is still ongoing, the CrPC’s rules do not permit continuous detention for longer than 60 days.

The defendant argued that before being granted bail, the accused in this case should have either appealed the Magistrate’s decision to deny default bail to the High Court or filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the decision utilising the provisions of Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

Court Analysis 

The right to default bail was emphasised by a panel of Justices Krishna Murari and CT Ravikumar as being more than just a statutory one but also a basic one that derives from Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the court emphasized that a chargesheet or complaint can only be made when the initial inquiry is complete and that failing to do so will result in the statutory right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a result, the Investigating Agency and the trial court disregarded the law’s directive and proceeded in a way that was arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental rights that the accused were guaranteed.