The right to 'default bail', also known as statutory bail or compulsive bail, is a crucial safeguard for an accused person's liberty, enshrined under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This provision mandates that if the investigation is not completed within a specified period (60, 90, or 180 days, depending on the nature of the offence), and a charge-sheet is not filed, the accused shall be released on bail, provided they are prepared to furnish bail. This right accrues automatically upon the expiry of the statutory period if the investigation remains incomplete.

The critical question is whether this accrued right to default bail can be extinguished by the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet by the police. The jurisprudence on this matter has evolved, but the prevailing view, firmly established by the Supreme Court of India, is that once the right to default bail has accrued and the accused has applied for it, this right cannot be defeated or extinguished by the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet.

Explanation through Case Law:

1. Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001): This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court clarified the position significantly. The Court held that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is an indefeasible right. If an application for default bail is filed by the accused after the expiry of the statutory period but before the filing of the charge-sheet, the accused must be released on bail. The subsequent filing of a charge-sheet cannot defeat this right. The Court emphasized that the moment the period specified in Section 167(2) expires and the accused applies for bail, the court has no option but to release them on bail, irrespective of the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet.

2. Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (1994): While this case primarily dealt with the TADA Act, it laid down foundational principles regarding default bail. The Court held that the right to default bail is not merely a procedural right but a substantive one. It stated that if the accused fails to exercise this right before the charge-sheet is filed, then the right stands extinguished. However, if the accused applies for default bail before the charge-sheet is filed, the right crystallizes and cannot be defeated by a later filing.

3. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017): This case further reinforced the principles laid down in Uday Mohanlal Acharya. The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right that accrues to the accused upon the expiry of the statutory period for investigation. If the accused applies for default bail after the expiry of the period but before the charge-sheet is filed, the court must grant bail. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet cannot take away this right.

Conclusion: In essence, the right to default bail is a powerful tool to ensure timely investigation and prevent indefinite detention. It is not extinguished by the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet if the accused has already applied for default bail after the expiry of the statutory period and before the charge-sheet was filed. If, however, the charge-sheet is filed before the accused applies for default bail, then the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC would cease to exist, and the accused would then have to seek regular bail under Section 437 or 439 CrPC, where the merits of the case would be considered.