Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: , Cl.(i) of proviso (a) to s.167(2) - Interpretation of words "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" - Petitioner arrested for an offence, inter alia, uls. 13(1) of the PC Act, 1988 - Offence uls. 13(1) of the PC Act punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than four years but may extend to ten years - After ,expiry of 60 days of detention, bail application filed by the petitioner before High Court which was rejected on ground that he could be detained for 90 days - State contended that the petitioner could be kept in custody for a period of 90 days in terms of cl.(i) of proviso (a) to s.167(2) as offences committed by petitioner could result in "imprisonment for a term not less than ten years" - Whether the Petitioner-accused entitled to grant of bail in terms of s.167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. as the investigating agency did not file charge-sheet within 60 days - Held: Yes .:._Per Madam B. Lokur, J.: The words "not less than" in cl(i) would mean that the imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only those offences for which punishment of imprisonment could be for a clear period of 10 years or more - If minimum sentencing is laid down by the Legislature, then the sentencing judge has no option but to give a sentence "not less than" that sentence provided for -; Therefore, the words "not less than" occurring in cl(i) to proviso (a) of s.167(2) of the code (and in other provisions) must be given their natural and obvious meaning which is to say, not below a minimum threshold and in case of s.167 of the code these words must relate to an offence punishable with a minimum of JO years imprisonment~ In instant case, alleged offence against the petitioner was not punishable with imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years - Thus, petitioner had indefeasible right to the grant of 'default bail' after expiry of sixty days of detention - Per Deepak Gupta, J, (concurring): The Words used by the Legislature are "not less than ten years", this means that the punishment should be 10 years or more - This can-not include offences where the maximum punishment is JO years -It obviously means that minimum punishment is JO years whateverB be the maximum punishment - There is no ambiguity in the wording of s.167(2) of the code - Per Prafulla C. Pant, J. (dissenting) : The Intention of the Legislature was that if an offence was punishable with imprisonment upto ten years, then it falls within the provision of s. l 67(2)(a)(i) of the code, and permissible period for investigation is 90 days - Though the expression "not less than ten years" used ins. J 67(2)(a)(i) of the code has created some ambiguity,the real intention of the legislature seems to include all such offences wherein an imprisonment which may extend to ten years is an award-a bl e sentence - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7,J 3(l)(a)(b)(d) and 13(2) (as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013).Default Bail - After expiry of sixty days of detention ulcl.(i)of proviso (a) to s.167(2) - Petitioner was arrested ulss. 7,13(l)(a)(b)(d} of the PC Act, 1988, which is punishable with imprisonment for a period ranging from 4 to 10 years - After Expiry of 60 days of detention, bail application filed by the petitioner before High Court was for regular bail and not for 'default bail' uls.167(2), however, oral arguments made before the High Court were predominantly based on u/s.167(2) - Whether petitioner entitled to default bail uls.167(2) - Held: Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: Jn instant case, an alleged offence against the petitioner was not punishable with imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years - Petitioner Had orally applied for 'default bail', under these circumstances the only course open to High Court was to enquire whether petitioner was prepared to furnish bail and if so then grant him 'default bail'on reasonable conditions - Per Deepak Gupta, J.(concurring):Admittedly, there is no plea for 'default bail' in bail application, but High Court permitted arguments on the ground of grant of 'default bail' and no objection was raised by the counsel for the State - of this objection had been raised at that stage, the accused could have either filed fresh application for grant of 'default bail' or could have prayed for 'default bail' by adding an additional ground in the existing application much before filing of charge sheet - Further. requirement is of furnishing bail, he does not have to file detailed.application and has to only aver in the application is that since 60190 days have expired and charge sheet has not been filed, he is entitled to bail and is willing to furnish bail - Per Prafulla C. Pant,J. (dissenting): Requirement of an application claiming the statutory Bright uls.167(2) of the code is a prerequisite for the grant of bailon default - Such application has to be made before the Magistrate For enforcement of statutory right - Jn present case petitioner never sought 'default bail' before the court concerned, as such not entitled to the same.Default bail - State contended that since charge sheet was Filed against the petitioner. he is not entitled to 'default bail' and must apply for regular bail - Held: Jn instant case, petitioner had applied for 'default bail' and availed his indefeasible right, when no charge sheet was filed - It would have been a different matter altogether if the petitioner had not applied for 'default bail' for Whatever reason - But, that is not the case insofar as the petitioner.did not give up his indefeasible right for default bail, on the contrary he had availed of his right, which is now acknowledged and reinforced - This indefeasible right cannot be defeated by filing charge sheet after the accused has offered to furnish bail (Per. Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)Constitution of India: Art. 21 - Personal Liberty - Held: In matters of personal liberty, view should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty - Consequently, whether the accused makes a written application for 'default bail' or an oral application for'default bail' is of no consequence - The concerned court must deal with such an application by considering the statutory requirements namely, whether the statutory period for filing charge sheet or cha/Ian has expired, whether the charge sheet or challan has been filed and whether the accused is prepared to and does furnish mail - It is not advisable in matters of personal liberty to be ritualistic and formal. (Per Madan B. Lokur. J.)Judicial Discipline:Duty of Courts - Held: In matters concerning personal liberty and penal statutes, it is the obligation of the court to inform the accused that he or she is entitled to free legal assistance as a matter of right - Equally, Court on coming to know that the accused person before it is entitled to 'default bail', to at least apprise him or her ofthe indefeasible right. (Per Madan B. Lokur. J.)Interpretation of Statutes:Golden rule of Interpretation - Held: Words used by the legislature should be given their natural meaning - Normally, Courts Should be hesitant to add words or subtract words from the statutory provision - An effort should always be made to read the legislative provision in such a way that there is no wastage of words and any construction which makes words of the statute redundant should be avoided - Courts can either add words or subtract words or read down the statute, but this should be done when there is ambiguity in the language used. (Per Deepak Gupta, J.)Two meaning attributed to provision - Held: If two meanings could be attributed to such provision then the courts must lean towards liberty and accept that interpretation of the statute, which upholds the liberty of the citizen (Per Deepak Gupta, J.)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Amendment made to,by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act - Applicability of - Held: It Applies to all accused charged with offences under the PC Act Irrespective of the fact whether the action is initiated under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act or any other law - Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.