1996 (5) TMI 442 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to bail u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Validity of the charge report filed by the CBI as a final report u/s 173 of the Code.
3. Legality of the remand of the petitioners to judicial custody for further investigation under various laws.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Bail u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners sought bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the expiry of 60 days since the investigation was incomplete. The Court held that under Section 167(2), if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, the accused is entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate has no power under Section 167 or Section 309 to remand the petitioners to custody for a further period without laying a charge against them.

2. Validity of the Charge Report Filed by the CBI as a Final Report u/s 173 of the Code:
The CBI filed a 'charge report' on 10-4-1996 under Sections 7(4)(c) and 7(5) of the Maritime Zones Act and Section 120-B of the IPC, but not for offences under the Official Secrets Act and other laws. The Court held that the investigation under Section 167 of the Code involves all offences against the accused, and a final report u/s 173 can only be filed after the completion of the entire investigation. The Court concluded that the CBI's report was not a final report u/s 173(2) as the investigation under the Official Secrets Act and other laws was still ongoing.

3. Legality of the Remand of the Petitioners to Judicial Custody for Further Investigation:
The Court found that the Magistrate's remand of the petitioners to judicial custody was illegal as it was done without a final report u/s 173(2). The Court reiterated that remand under Section 309(2) can only occur after taking cognizance of the offence, which had not happened since the investigation was incomplete. The Court directed the release of the petitioners on bail with conditions to ensure they do not interfere with the investigation.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petitioners' release on bail due to the CBI's failure to complete the investigation within the statutory period. The Court criticized the CBI for the delay and directed them to complete the investigation expeditiously. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.