Now we are in the E-world; default bail plea filed through E-Filing valid: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that a default bail application filed within time to canvass statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C through e-filing mode will be valid even without an application in physical form.

Setting aside the order of the Special Court who rejected the bail pleas of two accused persons in a double murder case, the bench of Justice A. Badharudeen said,

“…how can a court ignore an application filed through e-filing mode to hold that there was no petition filed within time for want of production of physical copy of the same within time.”

In the present case, the Special Court had dismissed the default bail application submitted by the accused persons on the ground that the physical copy of the bail application had not been filed before the filing of the final report by the Investigating Officer.

However, the single judge bench of the high court opined that:

“Legal position is so flexible since it has been settled that even an oral application would suffice the requirement of default bail.”

Court noted that while denying statutory bail to the accused, the Special Judge relied on decision of the high court in State of Kerala v. Muneer (2021) to hold that even if the investigating agency had not filed final report/charge sheet within the period prescribed under Section 16, so long as investigating agency, thereafter, filed final report but before remand of the accused, then if the accused made his plea to be released on statutory default bail after that his right to be released on statutory bail would get extinguished.

Court held that “in such a case involving the question as to whether the accused filed an application for statutory bail within time, by filing the same in e-filing mode, it has to be held that the accused expressed his preparedness to be released on statutory bail within time and to furnish bail by filing application for bail through the e-filing mode”.

The court stressed that on a plain reading of Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C it is crystal clear that after the expiry of the period of 90 or 60 days the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.

Therefore, court held that in the present case, relevant point of consideration was whether the accused persons were prepared to furnish bail, on expiry of 90 days, that too, before filing of the final report or not.

Court answered the question in favour of the accused persons, and held that the Special Judge had erred in his decision.

Accordingly, Court set aside the order of the Special Judge and directed the accused persons to be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.75,000 each.

Case Title: Akshay @ Ajeesh @ Anathu v. State of Kerala and another connected matter