Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam - Case Analysis

Introduction of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam

The case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam revolves around the accused’s right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In this case Rakesh Kumar Paul was arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but was not named in the FIR initially. After being in custody for 60 days without a charge sheet being filed, he filed an application for bail. The case explores whether Paul was entitled to default bail and the importance of timely investigations to protect the liberty of the individual.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Historical Context and Facts of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam

The case at hand revolves around Rakesh Kumar Paul. An FIR was initially registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Rakesh Kumar Paul was not named in the FIR but he was arrested under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 5th November, 2016.

Initial Bail Attempt

On 20th December, 2016 Paul filed a bail application before the Special Judge but the same was rejected and he remained in custody.

Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C

Rakesh Kumar Paul on 1st January 2017 filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Gauhati. However, the High Court rejected the bail application. 

60-Days Detention period and Default Bail

The period of 60 days for detention was set to end on 3rd January, 2017. According to Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if no charge sheet is filed within this 60-day period in such a case the accused is entitled to default bail.

Argument of the State for 90-Days Detention period

The State argued that Section 167(2)(a)(i) is applied which allows for a 90-day detention for offences punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more. 

Subsequent Bail Application

On 11th January, 2017, Paul again filed an application for bail before the Gauhati High Court but the application was rejected. At this time, he filed an ordinary bail rather than default bail.

Filing of the Chargesheet

On 24th January 2017 a charge sheet was filed against Rakesh Kumar Paul.

Issue addressed in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam

The main question which was addressed in this case-

• Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail when his application for regular bail was rejected by the Gauhati High Court?

Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 167(2) of the Code provides that in case if the investigation is not completed within a period of 90 for offences punishable with imprisonment of at least 10 years and 60 days for other offences then in such a case the accused is entitled to bail by default.

Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section 13 of the Act states that-

A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct-

1. if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do
2. if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 120B of the Code deals with the punishment for the criminal conspiracy.

1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 420 of the Code relates to the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property or goods. It also applies when a person is deceived into altering or destroying a valuable security or document capable of being converted into a valuable security. The punishment can extend up to seven years of imprisonment and fine.

Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 468 of the IPC addresses forgery committed for the purpose of cheating. It applies to anyone who forges a document or electronic record with the intent to deceive. The punishment can extend up to seven years of imprisonment and fine.

Judgment and Impact of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam

The Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam held that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years in case if the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days in such a case the accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court also highlighted that default bail is an indefeasible right and cannot be overturned once the statutory period has passed without a charge sheet. The decision in this case also highlighted the need for police reforms to ensure timely investigations and protect personal liberty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam affirmed that default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is an indefeasible right when a charge sheet is not filed within the period prescribed. The Court in this case rejected the argument of the State that this right is lost after a charge sheet is filed. The decision in this case underlined the need for timely investigations to safeguard individual liberty and to prevent unnecessary detention for a longer period.