The Wire: New Delhi: Friday, June 23, 2017.
N.
Rajamarthandan, the 2008-batch IPS officer who was arrested for disclosing
information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act relating to the probe over
the attack on the office of the All Assam Students Union (AASU) in March, was
released on “default bail” on June 12. Therefore, his appeal in the Supreme
Court against the Gauhati high court’s denial of bail to him has now become
infructuous.
The Wire had
earlier reported that the AASU office was allegedly attacked in March by the
Nikhil Bharat Udbastu Samannay Samiti, a group that supports granting
citizenship to Hindu Bengalis by amending the Citizenship Act.
Rajamarthandan,
who was the supervisory officer of the special investigation team probing the
attack, was arrested for disclosing to an RTI applicant allegedly confidential
information relating to the ongoing investigation.
Rajamarthandan
being granted default bail shows that the Assam government has failed to obtain
evidence against him within the statutory period of 60 days from his arrest.
Bail under
Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is popularly referred
to as “default bail.” It is called so because the accused is entitled to be
released on bail on account of a default on the part of the prosecution to file
a chargesheet after the completion of investigation under Section 173(2) CrPC
within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days.
The 90-day
limit applies in cases where the investigation relates to an offence punishable
by death, imprisonment for life or for a term not less than ten years, while
the 60-day limit applies to investigation relating to any other offence. The
period of 60 or 90 days commences from the date on which the accused is
remanded rather than from the date of the arrest.
Since
Rajamarthandan has been in jail custody since April 7 in connection with
alleged offences under Section 120B and other provisions of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 98(a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 and Section 5(1)(b)
of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 – none of which could result in a punishment
of death or ten-year imprisonment – he was eligible for release on bail on June
12.
On June 19,
when the case came up for hearing before the Supreme Court’s vacation bench
comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Rajamarthandan’s
counsel, Nitya Ramakrishnan, told the bench that his special leave petition did
not survive following his release on default bail. The petition was thus
dismissed as having become infructuous.
The Supreme
Court’s record of proceedings on June 19 for this case was uploaded on
Wednesday, June 21.
Legally, even
if the prosecution now seeks an extension of time for filing a chargesheet, or
does indeed file a chargesheet after the expiry of 60 days from
Rajamarthandan’s jail custody on April 7, it will not dilute his entitlement to
the default bail, as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India through CBI v
Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav on June 30, 2014.
The apex
court had held in that case that “A court cannot act to extinguish the right of
an accused if the law so confers on him. Law has to prevail. The prosecution
cannot avail such subterfuges to frustrate or destroy the legal right of the
accused.”
Rajamarthandan
can, therefore, fight the case registered against him legally without losing
his freedom.
.JPG)
.JPG)
