Mumbai, December 1, 2018 (Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act): The Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Greater Bombay, Shri S.V. Yarlagadda (Court Room No. 54), has rejected the default bail application of Sachin Shankar Salve, Accused No. 2, in connection with a bribery case registered by the ACB, Mumbai (Crime No. 32/2018).

Salve, aged 32, was arrested and first produced before the court on October 2, 2018, for offences punishable under sections 7, 7A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). He has been in judicial custody since then, leading to his application for default bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Prosecution’s Submission:

The prosecution, in its reply, stated that there was ample evidence against the applicant for conviction. However, due to technical and procedural formalities, the charge sheet could not be filed on the day of the hearing (December 1, 2018).

Applicant’s Argument for Default Bail:

Mr. Sourabh More, holding for Mr. Shrinivas Balla, the learned advocate for the applicant, argued that since the applicant was produced on October 2, 2018, December 1, 2018, was the 61st day of his custody. Even if the date of production was excluded, it would still be the 60th day, and with court hours nearing completion and the following day being a holiday, the applicant was entitled to default bail due to the non-filing of the charge sheet within the stipulated period. The advocate specifically argued that the day of production must be counted as one full day, making it the 61st day.

Investigating Officer’s Explanation:

The investigating officer submitted that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was prepared and submitted for scrutiny, and the process of obtaining sanction to prosecute the applicant was underway. He also submitted a copy of the charge sheet in the remand application.

Court’s Reasoning:

Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda addressed the applicant’s argument regarding the calculation of the 60-day period. He referred to the Supreme Court authority of Ravi Prakash Singh V/s. State of Bihar (AIR 2015 SC 1294), which clarified the method of calculating the period of detention. The court held that a plain calculation of 60 days from October 2, 2018, showed that December 1, 2018, was the 60th day, not the 61st. The submission that the day of production must be necessarily included as a full day, making it the 61st day, was therefore not accepted.

Regarding the submissions about the nearing end of court hours and the following day being a holiday, the court stated that office hours are not to be counted for the purpose of filing the charge sheet. As December 1, 2018, was the 60th day, and the accused was already remanded to judicial custody until December 3, 2018, default bail could not be granted on the 60th day itself.

Final Order:

The court passed the following final order:

The application for default bail is rejected with liberty to file a fresh application on the 61st day onwards.

The court also stated that a separate order would be passed on December 3, 2018, regarding the Investigating Officer’s failure to file the charge sheet, and the officer could file a written explanation on that date if desired.

The bail application was disposed of accordingly.

This order clarifies the calculation of the 60-day period for filing a charge sheet and indicates that default bail cannot be claimed on the 60th day itself, even if the charge sheet is not filed by the end of that day. The applicant was granted the liberty to re-apply for bail on the 61st day if the charge sheet was still not filed.