9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 228 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of default bail - Money Laundering - amassing Assets disproportionate to known sources of income u/s 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Under what circumstances can a Complaint filed in the Court can be considered as incomplete? HELD THAT - In the case of Satender Kumar Antil 2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court observed that it is the duty of the Agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would entitle the accused to be released on default bail. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect, to which due effect must be given by the Courts. Thus, any detention beyond the period would certainly be illegal, being an affront to the liberty of the person concerned. Therefore, it is not only the duty of the investigating agency but also of the Court to ensure that in appropriate cases, the accused gets the benefit of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Similar observations were made in Rakesh Kumar Paul 2017 (8) TMI 1526 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was observed that the default bail is an important right about which millions of countrymen may not be aware because of their ignorance and illiteracy. In the case of Sanjay Dutt 1994 (9) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT , the expression if not already availed of as they appear in Section 167 (2) have to be understood to mean that when an Application is filed by the accused and he is prepared to offer the bail then it has to be held that the accused has availed his indefeasible right even though the Court has not considered the said Application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail. Under what circumstances can a Complaint filed in the Court can be considered as incomplete? - HELD THAT - In the present case, the contents of the Complaint disclosed all the ingredients for commission of an offence against the accused and the cognizance is also taken, it is evident that the investigations qua the accused for disclosing the commission of the offence, is complete. There may be supplementary investigations undertaken, but the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that incidental or supportive investigations may continue by way of F.S.L. Report, which was to collect such other further details but that in itself would not take away the completeness of the Complaint in so much as the contents of the Complaint discloses all the ingredients for commission of offence. Mere supplementary evidence, which is only intended to be filed in support of the main Charge Sheet, would not make the Complaint incomplete. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Others 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT it was observed that Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 3 is only an enabling provision permitting to take on record material regarding further investigation against any accused person involved in respect of offence of money-laundering for which Complaint has already been filed, whether he has been named in the complaint or not. Such a provision, in fact, is a wholesome provision to ensure that no person involved in the commission of offence of money-laundering, must go unpunished. It is always open to the Authority authorised to seek permission of the Court during the trial of the Complaint in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by the Court, to bring on record further evidence which request can be dealt with by the Special Court in accordance with law keeping in mind the provisions of the 1973 Code as well. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that the Complaint filed against the petitioners, were complete in the sense of containing all the necessary ingredients for the commission of the offence. Any further investigations, which are only supplementary in nature which do not make the Complaint incomplete, there being no default in filing the Complaint within the statutory period. The default bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, rightly denied to the applicants and both the Petitions are hereby dismissed. However, this does not prevent their right to seek Regular Bail on merits. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Completeness of the Complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 3. Right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Continuation of investigations after filing the Complaint. 5. Individual roles of the petitioners in the alleged offenses. 6. Legal precedents and interpretations concerning default bail and further investigations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.: The petitioners sought bail under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. They argued that the Complaint filed against them was incomplete and intended to defeat their right to default bail. The learned Special Judge had dismissed their Bail Application, and the petitioners contended that the statutory period for filing the Charge Sheet was not adhered to. 2. Completeness of the Complaint Filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED): The Complaint was filed within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of arrest. The petitioners argued that the Complaint was incomplete as further investigations were ongoing. However, the Court observed that the cognizance of the Complaints had been taken by the Ld. Special Judge, indicating that the Complaint disclosed all the ingredients for the commission of the offense. 3. Right to Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.: The petitioners argued that they were entitled to default bail as the Complaint was incomplete. The Court referred to several judgments, including Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, and Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, which emphasized the duty of the investigating agency to complete investigations within the prescribed time. However, the Court noted that the right to default bail ceases once a Charge Sheet is filed, even if further investigations are pending. 4. Continuation of Investigations After Filing the Complaint: The Court noted that further investigations could continue even after filing the Charge Sheet. The pendency of further investigations does not invalidate the Charge Sheet or entitle the accused to default bail. The Court referred to Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI, Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., and Abdul Azeez P.V. vs. National Investigation Agency, which supported this view. 5. Individual Roles of the Petitioners in the Alleged Offenses: The roles of Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain were detailed in the prosecution Complaint. Both were accused of declaring undisclosed income under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016, to shield another accused, thereby concealing the true nature of the proceeds of crime. They were involved in money laundering and preparing back-dated documents to project the proceeds of crime as untainted. 6. Legal Precedents and Interpretations Concerning Default Bail and Further Investigations: The Court referred to several legal precedents, including K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India & Ors., which explained the scope of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and the requirements for a complete report. The Court also referred to Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., which allowed for further evidence to be brought on record during the trial. The Court concluded that the Complaint filed against the petitioners was complete and any further investigations were supplementary in nature. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petitions for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., stating that the Complaint filed was complete and within the statutory period. The right to default bail was not triggered by the continuation of further investigations. The petitioners were advised that they could seek Regular Bail on merits. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
