2006 (8) TMI 687 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
2. Validity of the charge-sheet filed without the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:

The primary question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the period of 60 days expired on 9th or 10th July 2006, and since the charge-sheet was filed on 11th July 2006, he was entitled to bail. The prosecution contended that the 60-day period should be counted from the date of remand, not the date of arrest, starting from 13th May 2006 and ending on the midnight of 11th July 2006. The court agreed with the prosecution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Chaganti Satyanaravana v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and a Delhi High Court ruling in *Banke Bihari Gupta v. State of Delhi*. These judgments clarified that the period is to be calculated from the date of remand, excluding the date of remand and including the date of filing the charge-sheet. Consequently, the charge-sheet filed on 11th July 2006 was within the 60-day period, defeating the petitioner's claim for statutory bail.

2. Validity of the Charge-sheet Filed Without Sanction:

The petitioner contended that the charge-sheet filed on 11th July 2006 was defective as it lacked the sanction required under Section 19 of the PC Act, arguing that without such sanction, the charge-sheet was incomplete and the court could not take cognizance. The prosecution countered that the sanction is not a part of the investigation and can be submitted subsequently with the court's permission, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *Hitender Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra*. The court agreed with the prosecution, noting that the sanction is not part of the investigation and that a charge-sheet can be filed without it. The court can adjourn proceedings and take cognizance once the sanction is produced. Thus, the charge-sheet filed on 11th July 2006 was deemed proper for the purposes of Section 167 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the 60-day period for filing the charge-sheet should be calculated from the date of remand and that a charge-sheet filed without the sanction is still valid, provided the sanction can be submitted later. The application for bail was dismissed accordingly.