2007 (9) TMI 686 - SC - Indian Laws

Remand in police custody - Application of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC vis- -vis Sub-section (2) of Section 309 - Application for statutory bail u/s 167 (2) of the Code filled on expiry of 60 days from the date of arrest - further investigation was pending - Right of the appellant under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code - HELD THAT - Concededly, the investigating agency is required to complete investigation within a reasonable time. The ideal period therefor would be 24 hours, but, in some cases, it may not be practically possible to do so. The Parliament, therefore, thought it fit that remand of the accused can be sought for in the event investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be. But, if the same is not done with the stipulated period, the same would not be detrimental to the accused and, thus, he, on the expiry thereof would be entitled to apply for bail, subject to fulfilling the conditions prescribed therefor. Such a right of bail although is a valuable right but the same is a conditional one; the condition precedent being pendency of the investigation. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is to be read in its entirety. Construction of a statute should be made in a manner so as to give effect to all the provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated by the Parliament at two stages; pre-cognizance and post cognizance. Even in the same case depending upon the nature of charge sheet filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the Code, a cognizance may be taken as against the person against whom an offence is said to have been made out and against whom no such offence has been made out even when investigation is pending. So long a charge sheet is not filed within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, investigation remains pending. It, however, does not preclude an investigating officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to carry on further investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an investigation leading to filing of final form under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further investigation contemplated under Sub-section (8) thereof. Whereas only when a charge sheet is not filed and investigation is kept pending, benefit of proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge sheet is filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a further investigation remains pending within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. The High Court, in our opinion, is correct in its finding that, in the fact situation obtaining, the appellant had no statutory right to be released on bail. We do not, thus, find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vis-`a-vis Sub-section (2) of Section 309.
2. Validity of the charge sheet filed against the appellant.
3. Appellant's entitlement to statutory bail under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 vis-`a-vis Sub-section (2) of Section 309:
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 and Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was established that Sub-section (2) of Section 167 applies when cognizance has not yet been taken, while Sub-section (2) of Section 309 applies after cognizance has been taken. The Court clarified that the power to direct remand of an accused depends on the stage of the trial. The Court referenced the case of *Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar* to emphasize that even after cognizance is taken, further investigation is permissible, and the provisions of Section 167 would apply to a person arrested during such investigation.

2. Validity of the Charge Sheet:
The appellant contended that the charge sheet filed against him was illegal and invalid, thereby depriving him of his right to bail. The Supreme Court held that a charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It was noted that the charge sheet was submitted to enable the court to decide whether to take cognizance of the offence. The Court stated that the charge sheet need not await the arrest of the accused if sufficient evidence is available. The Court further held that the charge sheet's validity was not in question, and the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the offence.

3. Appellant's Entitlement to Statutory Bail:
The appellant argued that he was entitled to statutory bail under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code since no further charge sheet was filed within the stipulated period. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that once a charge sheet is filed, the right to statutory bail ceases. The Court referred to the *Sanjay Dutt* case, which held that the 'indefeasible right' to bail under Section 167(2) does not survive once the charge sheet is filed. The Court concluded that the appellant's right to statutory bail did not revive merely because further investigation was pending under Sub-section (8) of Section 173.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the appellant had no statutory right to be released on bail. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing the proper interpretation and application of Sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.