2023 (9) TMI 1442 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of default bail - incomplete chargesheet or not - FSL report awaited - whether the main chargesheet as well as the subsequent supplementary chargesheets filed in the present case are incomplete on account of non-filing of documents likke doctor's opinion, FSL Report and sanction order u/s 39 of the Arms Act, 1959? - HELD THAT - With regard to requirement sanction vis-a-vis default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, in Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh Samra alias Jasbir and Others v. National Investigation Agency 2023 (5) TMI 1302 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the decision in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain 2013 (2) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT and held that a chargesheet filed without sanction would not be deemed incomplete. In the present case, the investigation qua the applicant was complete at the time the first chargesheet was filed, as regards the offences mentioned in the FIR, on 02.12.2021. At the time of filing of the first chargesheet, there was sufficient material on record qua the applicant such as statements of eye-witnesses and other material evidence collected and placed on record. Mere non-filing of the FSL Report is not sufficient to conclude that the chargesheet filed in the present case was incomplete. The said report can be filed by way of a supplementary chargesheet. In any case, the case of the prosecution is primarily based on the eye witness account of the complainant. The FSL report, if any, would be a corroborative piece of evidence. The opinion of the expert can always be filed before the learned Trial Court by way of supplementary chargesheet. It is further pertinent to note that in the present case, the learned Trial Court had taken the cognizance after the chargesheet was filed and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that the chargesheet filed in the present case was not incomplete - the bail application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to default/statutory bail.
2. Completeness of the chargesheet.
3. Requirement of sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Default/Statutory Bail:
The applicant sought default bail under Section 167 of the CrPC, arguing that the chargesheet filed was incomplete. The court noted that the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated ninety-day period, and the right to default bail arises only when the chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed period or is incomplete. The court examined whether the main chargesheet and subsequent supplementary chargesheets were incomplete due to non-filing of certain documents and reports.

2. Completeness of the Chargesheet:
The court observed that the investigation was complete at the time of filing the chargesheet on 02.12.2021, with sufficient material on record, including eyewitness statements. The non-filing of the FSL report did not render the chargesheet incomplete, as the FSL report is considered corroborative evidence and can be filed later as a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The court referred to precedents from the Supreme Court, including *Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI* and *Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra*, which established that a chargesheet is deemed complete if it contains sufficient material to prosecute the accused, and further investigation can continue even after its filing.

3. Requirement of Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act:
The applicant argued that the chargesheet was incomplete due to the non-filing of a sanction order under Section 39 of the Arms Act. The court, relying on the precedent set in *Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh Samra alias Jasbir and Others v. National Investigation Agency*, held that the filing of a chargesheet without a sanction order does not make it incomplete. The sanction can be obtained and filed later, and the absence of a sanction order does not affect the completion of the investigation.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the chargesheet filed in the present case was not incomplete, and the applicant was not entitled to default bail. The application was dismissed, and the applicant was advised to approach the trial court for bail on merits. The judgment emphasized that the decision was limited to the issue of default bail and did not reflect on the merits of the case.