9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1598 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - It is contended by Investigating Officer that charge-sheet was complete against the present petitioner and the matter was only kept pending with regard to investigation in relation to other two hundred plus suspected persons - HELD THAT - The contention of Investigating Officer that it is the practice of SOG to make a note that the matter is kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against all is also not a ground to deny the bail more particularly when it is clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet that the investigation is kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner. It is true that Investigating Agency has a right to continue with the investigation but equally it is true that if the investigation is not completed within a prescribed time then the accused is entitled to default bail under the provision of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided the conditions imposed are satisfies - application allowed.
Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. Arrest and incomplete charge-sheet filed within the statutory period. 3. Challenge of taking cognizance and remand by revisional Court. 4. Request for charge arguments and completion of investigation. 5. Entitlement to default bail after illegal confinement. 6. Interpretation of legal precedents regarding default bail rights. 7. Opposition by Investigating Officer and State. 8. Examination of charge-sheet and investigation progress. 9. Consideration of contentions and perusal of relevant documents. 10. Decision on granting bail and conditions imposed. The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. following the registration of F.I.R. No. 24/2018 for various offenses. The petitioner was arrested and an incomplete charge-sheet was filed within the statutory period, leading to a challenge of taking cognizance and subsequent remand by the revisional Court. Despite a request for charge arguments, the Court directed completion of the investigation before hearing the charges. The petitioner, having been in custody for 258 days with 168 days of illegal confinement, claimed entitlement to default bail. The petitioner relied on legal precedents such as "Achpal vs. State of Rajasthan 2019 Crl.L.J. 401" and "Rakesh Kumar Pal vs. State of Assam AIR 2017 SC 3948" to support the claim that default bail is an indefeasible right if the investigation is not completed within the statutory period. The Investigating Officer opposed the bail application, citing the completion of 75% of the investigation and a pending misc. petition by the State. However, the Court emphasized that the delay in completing the investigation cannot deprive the petitioner of default bail. Upon examining the charge-sheet and relevant documents, the Court noted that the investigation was being continued against multiple accused under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the petitioner's right to default bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. was being violated, as evidenced by the expiration of 168 days after the statutory period of 90 days. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner's release on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions, including the deposit of the Passport with the trial Court and restrictions on leaving the country without prior permission. In conclusion, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the indefeasible right to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed time frame, as established by legal precedents and statutory provisions. The decision highlighted the importance of upholding the accused's rights while ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and investigation timelines.
|
