The Supreme Court ruled in CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) that default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not absolute and can be cancelled after filing a chargesheet in serious non-bailable offences. Learn about this landmark decision balancing bail rights and justice.

Introduction: Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Default Bail

In a significant judgment on January 16, 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy that default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not an unassailable right. The Court clarified that such bail can be cancelled on merits after the filing of a chargesheet, especially in cases involving serious non-bailable offences like murder.

This decision arose from the high-profile murder case of Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy, shedding light on the legal balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice.

Case Background: Facts and Timeline

The Crime and Initial Investigation

• Victim: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy, former legislator and Member of Parliament

• Incident Date: March 2019

• Initially registered under Section 174 CrPC (unnatural death), the case was later upgraded to Sections 302 and 120B IPC (murder and criminal conspiracy).

Arrest and Default Bail

• Accused: T. Gangi Reddy

• Arrest Date: March 28, 2019

• Due to delay in investigation, the accused was granted default bail on June 27, 2019, under Section 167(2) CrPC, which mandates bail if a chargesheet is not filed within 60 days.

CBI Takes Over and Files Chargesheet

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the case and filed a detailed chargesheet on October 26, 2021, implicating Gangi Reddy.

• CBI then moved to cancel the default bail, citing seriousness of the offence and strong prima facie evidence.

Legal Issue: Can Default Bail Be Cancelled After Chargesheet?

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was:

Can an accused who has secured default bail due to delay in investigation lose that bail once a chargesheet is filed in serious, non-bailable cases?

Arguments Before the Court

CBI’s Arguments (Petitioner)

• Default bail is conditional, not absolute—it’s granted only because of a procedural delay.

• Once a chargesheet is filed, especially in heinous crimes like murder, the court has discretion to cancel bail based on the merits of the case.

• Continued bail poses a risk to the investigation, including potential tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Default bail under Section 167(2) is a statutory right and should not be revoked merely because the investigation later concluded.

• Cancelling default bail would undermine the intent of Section 167(2), which aims to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention due to investigative delays.

Supreme Court Judgment: Bail is Not Absolute

Key Observations by the Court

• Presiding Judges: Justice M. R. Shah and Justice C. T. Ravikumar

• Date of Judgment: January 16, 2023

• The Court held that default bail is not an absolute or indefeasible right. Once a chargesheet is filed with strong evidence in a serious offence, courts can cancel such bail.

• The ruling emphasized the gravity of the crime, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the interests of justice.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards like default bail are not meant to protect offenders indefinitely, especially when strong evidence emerges post-investigation.

Conclusion: Balancing Liberty and Justice

The Supreme Court’s ruling in CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy sets a critical precedent in Indian criminal law. It affirms that while the right to default bail safeguards against undue detention, it does not override the need for justice in serious criminal cases. Courts retain the discretion to cancel bail once substantial evidence surfaces, ensuring the integrity of the judicial process.

Key Takeaways

• Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not permanent.

• Courts can cancel bail after a chargesheet, especially in serious, non-bailable offences.

• The judgment upholds a balanced approach between personal liberty and public interest.