2012 (11) TMI 1224 - SC - Indian Laws

Application for bail - entitled to the benefit of statutory bail in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure - Police Encounter - Petitioner was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police - FIR registered against unidentified persons Under Sections 307, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code), Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 - HELD THAT - It is obvious that the Petitioner was fully aware of the situation while making the application for grant of bail, knowing that he was under arrest in connection with the first F.I.R. and not under the second F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. In the event the second investigation is treated to be a fresh investigation and the Petitioner had been arrested in connection therewith, the submissions made by Mr. Sushil Kumar would have been relevant. However, since the prayer for default bail was made in connection with F.I.R. No. 115 of 2006, in which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the argument with regard to the default bail was not available to the Petitioner and such argument has, therefore, to be rejected. The other submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar that since a fresh investigation was directed to be conducted by this Court, the earlier charge-sheet must be deemed to have been quashed, has to be rejected also on the same ground. Even on the question of delay in concluding the trial, such delay has not been caused by the prosecuting authorities, but by a co-accused and advantage thereof cannot be taken by the Petitioner. Since no argument had been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner on the merits of the case, we also refrain from looking into the same and on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are not convinced that the Special Leave Petition, along with the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 11364 of 2012, warrants any interference by this Court. The Special Leave Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are, therefore, dismissed. Order - Jasti Chelameswar, J. - In my opinion, the mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the Investigating Officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted u/s 173(2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only that either the Investigating Agency or the concerned Court is not completely satisfied with the material collected by the investigating agency and is of the opinion that possibly some more material is required to be collected in order to sustain the allegations of the commission of the offence indicated in the report. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for the Petitioner, that the directions given by this Court earlier in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2007 would necessarily mean that the charge-sheet submitted by the police stood implicitly rejected is without any basis in law and misconceived. Even the fact that the CBI purported to have registered a fresh FIR , in my opinion, does not lead to conclusion in law that the earlier report or the material collected by the Gujarat Police (CID) on the basis of which they filed the charge-sheet ceased to exist. It only demonstrates the administrative practice of the CBI. In my view, notwithstanding the practice of the CBI to register a fresh FIR , the investigation undertaken by the CBI is in the nature of further investigation u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to the direction of this Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Validity of the initial charge-sheet after the Supreme Court's direction for a fresh investigation by the CBI.
3. Delay in trial and its impact on the bail application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The Petitioner argued that he was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the CBI failed to file a charge-sheet within 90 days after registering a fresh F.I.R. This argument was based on the premise that the Supreme Court's direction for a fresh investigation implicitly quashed the initial charge-sheet filed by the State police. However, the Court found this argument flawed. The Petitioner was arrested under the first F.I.R. (No. 115 of 2006), and a charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. Therefore, the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) was not available to the Petitioner. The Court clarified that the fresh investigation by the CBI did not nullify the initial charge-sheet, and thus, the Petitioner's argument for default bail was rejected.

2. Validity of the Initial Charge-sheet after the Supreme Court's Direction for a Fresh Investigation by the CBI:

The Petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's direction for a fresh investigation by the CBI implicitly quashed the initial charge-sheet filed by the State police. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the direction for a fresh investigation did not mean that the initial charge-sheet was quashed. The CBI's fresh investigation was considered a continuation of the initial investigation. The Court emphasized that the lodging of a fresh F.I.R. by the CBI was for the purpose of enabling the CBI to take over the investigation from the State police, and not to nullify the initial charge-sheet. Therefore, the initial charge-sheet remained valid, and the Petitioner's argument was dismissed.

3. Delay in Trial and Its Impact on the Bail Application:

The Petitioner argued that the delay in trial warranted his release on bail. The Court noted that the delay in the trial was not caused by the prosecuting authorities but by a co-accused. Therefore, the Petitioner could not take advantage of this delay to seek bail. The Court found no merit in the argument that the delay in trial should result in the Petitioner's release on bail. Consequently, the Petitioner's application for bail on the ground of delay in trial was also rejected.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the Petitioner regarding entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the validity of the initial charge-sheet, and the delay in trial. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had rejected the Petitioner's applications for bail.