2022 (11) TMI 1149 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Default bail - misappropriation of money - whether, after filling of a complaint and when the further investigation is still pending, the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC - HELD THAT - Section 173 of the CrPC does not prescribe piecemeal investigation and filing of incomplete charge sheet before the court. Section 173(8) CrPC prescribes that even after filing of charge sheet further investigation can be done. In that case, if the investigating officer gathers additional evidence, he can produce it after filing of the charge sheet. The law does not permit the State to expand the maximum period stipulated under Section 167(2) CrPC by filing supplementary charge sheet. This Court has the reason to hold that the incomplete complaint (charge sheet in CrPC parlance) filed against the petitioner is against the law stipulated by Section 173 CrPC because law does not permit piecemeal investigation. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC because investigation of the case is not yet complete. The petitioner Sri Subhra Jyoti Bharali is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,000,00/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Kamrup(M), Guwahati subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC after filing a complaint and pending further investigation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the Managing Director of a bank, was accused of misappropriating a substantial amount of money. The FIR detailed the alleged misappropriation under different heads of accounts. While the petitioner was arrested and had spent 120 days in judicial custody, seven other individuals named in the FIR were not arrested. A complaint was filed against the petitioner, mentioning that further investigation was ongoing regarding the other persons involved. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC due to the pending investigation.

The respondent argued that under Section 44(2) of the PMLA Act of 2002, further investigation could be conducted, and any subsequent complaints would be part of the initial complaint. The petitioner's counsel claimed that the respondent was selectively targeting the petitioner to prevent his release on bail. The court considered both arguments and examined the legal provisions in detail.

The court noted that Section 173 of the CrPC does not allow for piecemeal investigation or the filing of incomplete charge sheets. It emphasized that even after filing a charge sheet, further investigation could be conducted, and additional evidence could be presented later. The court held that the incomplete complaint against the petitioner did not comply with the law as it did not permit piecemeal investigation. Therefore, the petitioner was deemed entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC since the investigation was still ongoing and not yet complete.

Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner on certain conditions, including a bail amount, surety, restrictions on leaving the country, tampering with evidence, contacting or influencing witnesses, surrendering passports, and cooperating with the investigation when required by the Investigating Officer. The court's decision was based on the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that the petitioner's rights were upheld while addressing the ongoing investigation and legal requirements.