1982 (10) TMI 221 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application under Section 167(2) Proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Completion of investigation within 90 days from the date of arrest
- Submission of charge-sheet before completion of investigation
- Interpretation of Section 2(r) and Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Difference between a charge-sheet and a preliminary report
- Validity of charge-sheet despite absconding accused
- Consideration of subsequent bail applications based on new events or materials

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a bail application under Section 167(2) Proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that investigation was not completed within 90 days from the arrest. The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet filed before completion of investigation entitled him to bail, citing various decisions. The standing counsel argued that the charge-sheet was complete, containing all necessary statements and documents as required by law. The judge examined the relevant provisions of Section 173, emphasizing the requirement of a complete charge-sheet after investigation.

The judge clarified that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no provision for an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet. The charge-sheet under Section 173(2) must be submitted after the completion of investigation for taking cognizance of the offense. Section 173(8) allows for further investigation and submission of a supplementary charge-sheet, not a preliminary one. The judge emphasized that the substance of the report matters, and merely labeling it as incomplete does not exempt it from the requirements of Section 173(2).

In this case, the judge agreed with the standing counsel that the charge-sheet contained all necessary details and documents, despite some accused being absconding. The judge noted that cognizance was taken promptly after the charge-sheet submission, and previous bail applications did not raise the current contentions. The judge highlighted that subsequent bail applications can be based on new events or materials but found no merit in the current application as investigation had been completed. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, as the petitioner was not entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Proviso.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the distinction between a complete charge-sheet and a preliminary report, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling legal requirements for submission. It also underscores the significance of timely completion of investigations and the validity of charge-sheets even in the presence of absconding accused. Subsequent bail applications can be considered based on new grounds, but the court will assess the substance of the case and the completion of investigations before granting bail.