9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 387 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of petition - petition for mandatory bail under Section 16(2) has been filed even after filing of alleged charge sheet - Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The present petition was filed on 17.01.2023 nearly after 53 days after the statutory period of 60 days, as such, it cannot be said that the right of bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C and the petition are maintainable. In the event of an application being made on 26.11.2022, the approach of this Court would have been on the circumstances prevailing then. However, when no application was made on the 60th day and the petitioner suffering dismissal order of bail on 07.12.2022, cannot urge the Special Court to entertain an application for default bail which was filed on 17.01.2023 taking recourse to the judgment of this Court in the case of C.Parthasarathy s case 2022 (6) TMI 164 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT . The prayer for directing the Special Judge to entertain the default bail application vide SR No.548 of 2023 which was filed on 17.01.2023 nearly 113 days after his arrest. Statutory bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C has to be made on the date on which the right accrues which may be 60 or 90 or 180 days or 12 months as the case may be. Filing an application subsequently and asking the Court to entertain the application as status quo ante , cannot be permitted. The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petition to quash docket order dated 18.01.2023 2. Maintainability of bail petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C 3. Accrual of statutory right for bail 4. Dismissal of bail application on 07.12.2022 5. Timeliness of filing bail application 6. Interpretation of judgment in C. Parthasarathy v. Directorate of Enforcement 7. Progress of investigation affecting bail application Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition to quash the docket order dated 18.01.2023 passed in a Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was aggrieved by the return of his petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, which was initially rejected due to the filing of a charge sheet before the statutory period of 60 days had elapsed. 2. The key issue revolved around the maintainability of the bail petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the right to statutory bail accrued on a specific date, despite the filing of a complaint pending further investigation. The petitioner relied on the judgment in C. Parthasarathy v. Directorate of Enforcement to support the contention that a complaint or charge sheet filed without completing the investigation cannot circumvent the right of statutory bail. 3. The court considered the accrual of the statutory right for bail, emphasizing the importance of filing a bail application within the prescribed period. The prosecution contended that the bail application was refused earlier, and the petitioner failed to raise the issue of statutory bail during that proceeding. 4. The dismissal of the bail application on 07.12.2022 played a significant role in the judgment. The court noted that no grounds regarding the accrual of statutory bail were raised during the previous bail application, which impacted the subsequent petition's consideration. 5. The timeliness of filing the bail application was crucial. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory period for filing a bail application, noting that the petitioner's delay in filing the subsequent application impacted its maintainability. 6. The interpretation of the judgment in C. Parthasarathy v. Directorate of Enforcement was central to the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner sought to apply the principles established in that judgment to support the contention that the bail petition should be entertained despite the delay in filing. 7. The progress of the investigation and its impact on the bail application were discussed. The petitioner argued that since the investigation was ongoing, the right to bail accrued when the investigation was incomplete. However, the court emphasized the importance of filing the bail application promptly after the statutory period to maintain its validity. In conclusion, the court dismissed the Criminal Petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for filing bail applications and the need to raise relevant grounds in a timely manner during legal proceedings.
|
