Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours
Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours. Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police st The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole ; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that-
[(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days ; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
1 subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s, 13, for paragraph (a) (w,e,f, 18-12-1978).
2 Ins. by act 10 of 1990 , s.2 (w.e.f 19-2-1990) ______________________________________________________________________
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter ;]
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.
1 *[Explanation I.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail ;].
[Explanation II.-If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention.]
[(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order ; and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section,
_________________________________________________________________
1ins.by Act 45 of 1978, s. 13 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).
2 Explanation numbered as Explanation II by s. 13, ibid. (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). ________________________________________________________________
shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in para- graph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2):
Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.]
(3) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.
(4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.
(6) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.
Section 167, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 187 Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-5.pdf 2020-10-26 (not same-date order-4 ROP). Three-judge (CJI/Shantanagoudar/Vineet Saran), Crl A 699/2020. Default bail under CrPC 167(2) (NDPS 36A(4) 180-day overlay) is an indefeasible right once the accused applies after the investigation period; a later chargesheet cannot defeat an already-accrued application. Clarifies Uday Mohanlal Acharya, Sanjay Dutt ('if not already availed') and Rakesh Kumar Paul. Map CrPC 167 and successor BNSS 187.
On this section: s.167(2) default bail is indefeasible once the accused applies after the investigation period; a later chargesheet cannot defeat the accrued right.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Anuj Pandey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police custody remand under Section 167 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be authorized by a Magistrate for an accused person arrested during further investigation after charge sheet filing, if the Magistrate is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for such detention. The expression 'accused if in custody' in Section 309(2) CrPC refers only to accused before court at cognizance or trial stage and does not apply to accused arrested during further investigation, whose detention is governed by Section 167 CrPC provisions and safeguards.
On this section: Court clarified that police custody remand under Section 167 CrPC can be authorized by Magistrate for accused arrested during further investigation, subject to limitations (90 days for serious offences, 60 days for others). Magistrate must be satisfied adequate grounds exist.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Rathin Dandapath
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is arrested during further investigation after a charge sheet has been filed, the provisions of Section 167 CrPC governing detention in police or judicial custody shall apply to such person as long as further investigation continues, and the expression 'accused if in custody' in Section 309(2) CrPC does not include such persons. Consequently, a Magistrate has authority to grant police remand to the investigating agency for such arrested persons if the agency satisfies the legal requirements under Section 167, and cannot refuse such remand merely on the ground that charge sheet has been filed.
On this section: Empowers Magistrate to authorize detention of accused in police custody during investigation with specific time limits (90 days for serious offences, 60 days for others). Court applied this to permit police remand of accused arrested during further investigation.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours; maximum detention periods
-
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Vivek Harivyasi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The time period stipulated in Section 212(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for submission of investigation report by SFIO to the Central Government is purely directory and not mandatory. Therefore, expiry of such stipulated period does not terminate SFIO's mandate or its power to arrest. The mandate continues until completion of investigation and submission of final investigation report under Section 212(12). SFIO's arrest authority under Section 212(8) is not circumscribed by any time limit. In habeas corpus proceedings, the legality of detention is to be examined on the date of return/hearing, and if valid orders directing detention exist on that date, habeas corpus cannot be granted. Remand orders passed by competent judicial authorities are judicial functions and cannot be challenged through habeas corpus petitions.
On this section: Judicial custody and remand provisions - Magistrate authority to remand accused on merits
-
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not grant an absolute or indefeasible right to bail to an accused whose trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date of taking evidence. The Magistrate has discretion to refuse bail by recording reasons. However, applications under Section 437(6) must be given a liberal approach where: (1) the delay is not attributable to the accused; (2) there is no risk of evidence tampering; (3) there is no risk of abscondence; (4) the accused has been in custody throughout the period; and (5) the period of custody is substantial compared to the prescribed punishment. The grounds for refusing bail under Section 437(6) must be more weighty than routine grounds for refusing regular bail. The provision aims to protect the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 while balancing prosecution interests.
On this section: Default bail provisions when charge-sheet not filed within stipulated time. Distinguished from Section 437(6) as it grants absolute and indefeasible right with no discretion.
-
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prescribed period for investigation completion under Section 212(3) of the Companies Act 2013 is directory in nature and not mandatory. Expiry of the stipulated period does not terminate the investigation mandate. The investigation continues until final completion as contemplated by Section 212(12). High Courts should not pass blanket interim orders staying investigations and coercive proceedings at the interlocutory stage, as such orders may hamper investigations. The Central Government need not record detailed reasons when ordering an investigation under Section 212, as the purpose of investigation is to inquire into affairs and material emerges during the investigation process. Section 219(c) of the Companies Act 2013 authorizes investigation into companies whose Board comprises nominees of the principal company or which are accustomed to act under its directions, independent of subsidiary or holding company relationships.
On this section: Referenced for comparison; no fixed period for investigation completion under CrPC; rights flow only if investigation exceeds certain periods
-
Sakil Ahmad vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is remanded by a Magistrate under Section 167 of CrPC, the 60-day period for filing chargesheet must be calculated from the date of remand itself, including that day. If the chargesheet is filed on or after the 61st day, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail which cannot be frustrated by the prosecution, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations. This right accrues automatically upon expiry of the 60-day period and protects personal liberty against prolonged custody due to investigative delays.
On this section: Provides procedure when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours; requires transmission of case diary to Judicial Magistrate and forwarding of accused
-
Chiluka Saidi Reddy vs The State of Telanagana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a bail application is filed after the charge sheet has been filed, even if the charge sheet was filed after expiry of the statutory period under Section 167 CrPC, the accused is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues only from the time of default (expiry of statutory period) till the filing of charge sheet and does not survive or remain enforceable once the charge sheet is filed. The test is whether as on the date of expiry of statutory period, a charge sheet has been filed before the concerned court, irrespective of whether cognizance has been taken. If the bail application is filed after the charge sheet is filed, the accused must meet the requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act (or other applicable bail provisions) to obtain bail.
On this section: Core provision governing statutory bail rights when investigation is not completed within prescribed period. Court held that this right accrues only before charge sheet is filed and is extinguished once charge sheet is filed, irrespective of whether cognizance is taken.
-
Daljeet Singh Gill vs State N.c.t.of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused's indefeasible right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC proviso, when charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period, is not extinguished by the subsequent filing of charge sheet if the accused has already availed of that right by filing a bail application and offering to furnish bail within the prescribed period. The right is deemed availed when the accused files the application within the prescribed period, even if the lower court rejects it. The subsequent filing of charge sheet does not frustrate this right.
On this section: Provides for indefeasible right to bail after expiry of prescribed period (60 days for offences with no minimum sentence, 90 days for offences with minimum 10 years sentence) if charge sheet not filed. Court held this right does not extinguish upon subsequent charge sheet filing if bail application was filed within prescribed period.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs The Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-applicability of the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to controlled substances does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The court can refuse bail if there is seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic substances, existence of incriminating material, and likelihood of non-availability during trial, particularly in cases involving trans-border drug trafficking operations.
On this section: Incomplete charge-sheet grounds for default bail. Petitioners argued charge-sheet lacked FSL report.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even though Section 37 of the NDPS Act (twin test for bail) may not strictly apply to controlled substances as opposed to narcotic drugs, the non-applicability of this section does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Courts retain discretion to refuse bail in controlled substance cases based on: (1) seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic drugs, (2) presence of incriminating material establishing active participation in drug trafficking, (3) likelihood of accused absconding or becoming unavailable for trial, particularly when accused are non-residents of the trial jurisdiction, and (4) transnational/international aspects of the drug trafficking operation. The burden remains on the accused to satisfy the court that bail should be granted, and in cases involving serious drug trafficking with international linkage, courts should exercise caution in granting bail.
On this section: Default bail provisions. Petitioners had filed bail applications on ground that Final Complaint was incomplete due to missing FSL report.
-
Vishal Manohar Mandrekar vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Obtaining a transit warrant is mandatory for police to claim protection under Article 22(2) of the Constitution when arresting an accused outside the jurisdiction where the offence was registered. A subsequent remand order by a magistrate cannot legalize prior detention that violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The right under Article 22(2) is available against illegal detention by police, and if the prior detention is illegal, the accused is entitled to be released even if subsequently remanded to judicial custody by the magistrate. The police cannot claim the benefit of excluding journey time from the 24-hour period without obtaining a transit warrant.
On this section: Section 167 provides for remand of accused to custody. The court held that the benefit of Section 167(2) extends to accused in NDPS Act cases as well, but this does not cure prior violations of Article 22(2).
-
Harsha Vardhan vs The Inspector of Police, EOW, Thiruvallur.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The right to statutory bail under Section 187(2) of the BNSS is an absolute statutory right and legislative command. If the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the prescribed period of 60 or 90 days, the court has no discretion to deny bail based on the merits of the case or gravity of the offense.
On this section: Laid down historical legal obligation on the investigating agency to complete investigation within time-bound limits.
-
Mohd. Inam vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Section 437(6) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are mandatory in nature. When the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, and such person is in custody during the whole period, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. An order rejecting an application under Section 437(6) CrPC is not an interlocutory order but a substantive order affecting the rights of the accused, and therefore, a C482 application is maintainable against such an order. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to examine whether the order passed by the Magistrate is as per the mandate of Section 437(6) CrPC, particularly when the Magistrate has not recorded reasons for rejection as mandated by the statute.
On this section: Cited for comparison with Section 437(6) to distinguish between default bail during investigation and default bail during trial
-
Bhola Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the statutory period of 180 days (or 60/90 days as applicable) for filing charge-sheet expires without the charge-sheet being filed, an indefeasible right to default bail accrues to the accused. This right is computed by including the date of remand as the first day of the stipulated period. The date of remand cannot be excluded from this computation, as such exclusion would create a legal vacuum, violate personal liberty protections under the Constitution, and militate against the legislative intent of protecting accused from prolonged custody due to investigative delays. This right cannot be defeated by the prosecution filing the charge-sheet after the accused has offered to furnish bail.
On this section: Provides the right to default bail when charge-sheet is not filed within 60 or 90 days (depending on the offence). The court clarified that the date of remand must be included in this computation.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It appears that the subsequent bail applications filed by the Respondent - Accused, were also not granted by the concerned Courts. - vi. Ultimately, on 14.11.2020, the Respondent - Accused moved an application under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi seeking his release on bail on the ground that 60 days period had expired since he was arrested, and the charge-sheet against him, was not filed. - vii. The …
-
… In Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari(surpa) , the reference was made to the Division Bench to answer the following question of law: - "Whether the Investigating Agency has power to get police custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when an accused is already granted bail under the provision of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973." The Division Bench answered the reference in affirmative and thus, there was no impediment for the Investigating Officer to have sought police custody …
-
… In Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari(surpa) , the reference was made to the Division Bench to answer the following question of law: - "Whether the Investigating Agency has power to get police custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when an accused is already granted bail under the provision of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973." The Division Bench answered the reference in affirmative and thus, there was no impediment for the Investigating Officer to have sought police custody …
Questions about Section 167
What have the courts held on Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (26 Oct 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.167(2) default bail is indefeasible once the accused applies after the investigation period; a later chargesheet cannot defeat the accrued right. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 167, section 167 CRPC, section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (26 Oct 2020).
What should I read with Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 57 (Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 187 (Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called remand, default bail or police custody, and cited as CRPC 167, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
- 145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to causebreach of peace735 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.