9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, the strict adherence to the provisions of the Cr. P.C. in fact amounts to ensuring the fulfilment of the golden principles laid down in the Constitution of India. Section 57 of the Cr. P.C. provides that a person arrested cannot be detained for more than 24 hours and such person has to be produced within such time before the Court of law - It is a settled proposition that in the first 15 days, the Court can remand such accused to judicial or police custody. Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of the Cr. P.C. provides that such a custody cannot exceed 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years. Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) states that the detention cannot exceed 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. The Court is very clear in its mind that merely because in the charge sheet if the investigating agency has stated they want to conduct further investigation, the charge sheet cannot be termed as a preliminary charge sheet. The police has a right to conduct further investigation. However, at the same time, the investigating agency under the garb of further investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the overarching fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is dismissed. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma For the Appellant : Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP-CBI and Mr. R. A. Yadav, ASP-CBI with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Ms. Harpreet Kaisi, Mr. Abhishek Batra and Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Mr. Prakhar Parekh, Ms. Deepa Mr. Ashish Hira and Mr. Archit Jain, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Advocate through V/c with Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Mr. Prakhar Parekh, Ms. Deepa Mr. Ashish Hira and Mr. Archit Jain, Advocates for R-2. ORDER 1. This is a petition under sections 482 r/w 439 (2) Cr.P.C moved on behalf of petitioner CBI seeking quashing and/or cancellation of order dated 03.12.2022 passed by Ld. Spl. Judge, P.C. Act, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondents no. 1 2 have been granted default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations in brief are that M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as DHFL), Kapil Wadhawan, the then Chairman MD of DHFL, Dhe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the chargesheet reads as under: With regard to ascertaining roles of remaining FIR named accused persons namely Sh. Sudhakar Shetty, M/s Amaryllis Realtors M/s Gulmarg Realtors, remaining CAs (who had audited balance sheets of e-DHFL Shell companies and who had facilitated the promoters), ultimate beneficiaries/end use of diverted funds through shell companies other Wadhawan Group Companies, the DHFL officials, insider share trading of DHFL shares, bank officials, NHB officials and other connected issues, further investigation u/s 173 (8) of Cr. PC is continuing. List of additional witnesses and additional documents will be filed as and when required. 6. Respondents Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan filed an application u/s 167 (2) Cr. PC before the Court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI-08, RAC, New Delhi on 29.10.2022. 7. Vide order dated 26.11.2022, the Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI-08, New Delhi, took cognizance of the offences against all charge-sheeted seventy-five accused persons/entities including Respondents. 8. Vide impugned order dated 03.12.2022, the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) granted statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C to the Respondent nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed but is not complete, then the accused gets an indefeasible right to be released on bail without any discussion on merits. 42. The court is not blaming investigating agency for any lapse, intentional delay, lethargy, negligence and for not doing its homework before filing chargesheet, if the practical difficulties of it and fact of shortage of time are taken into consideration. Otherwise also, investigating officers are human being and it will be highly unreasonable to expect from them to work for entire 24 x 7 days and to run from one place to another without any break. There may be some highly remote intention on the part of the investigating agency to deprive the benefit of statutory bail to the accused persons but apparently chargesheet was filed with intention to disclose the labour and hard work done by CBI officials so far in a very short period of 90 days which they could do with their sincere and best efforts. Unfortunately, the chargesheet filed is found incomplete qua various aspects already discussed above even for these two accused though this court is satisfied with the work already done and labour already put on the job by CBI so far. Grant of this statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , namely the Chairman and Managing Director of DHFL, along with a Director, who are the respondents herein, are alleged to be the main orchestrators of the various offenses. They exercised complete financial control over DHFL, including the management of bank loans and public deposits. 12. Allegedly, in a coordinated conspiracy, the accused persons deceitfully diverted approximately Rs. 34,926.77 crores from DHFL by engaging in forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and falsification of accounts. They established 87 Shell Companies to siphon off funds, executing fictitious transactions while disregarding standard lending norms and security requirements. 13. Allegedly the disbursed loan amounts, obtained from various banks, were ostensibly intended for construction of buildings, but instead, they were funnelled towards fictitious individuals and Shell Companies. Additionally, the funds were used for investments in shares, debentures, and securities linked to DHFL's promoters. Guidelines set forth by RBI and the National Housing Board were wilfully ignored. Detailed audit reports demonstrate the misuse and misappropriation of the borrowed funds. 14. Allegedly the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insider share trading by the respondents herein, the involvement of NHB and bank officials, as well as other aspects of the extensive and separate conspiracy. Additionally, overseas investigation also has to carried out to trace the trail of DHFL's funds. It has been submitted that the chargesheet reveals that the respondents herein were the masterminds acting as the main conspirators and culprits behind all the offences, and were primarily involved in criminal activities between 2010 and 2019. 18. Contentions on behalf of the petitioner CBI I. On the issue of law regarding grant of mandatory bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. a) Ld. SPP for the petitioner CBI submits that the right to claim default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if the chargesheet is not filed. Once chargesheet is filed, the custody of an accused is not governed by the provision of Section 167 Cr.P.C. but under different provisions of Cr.P.C. Ld. SPP has relied on the judgements in Sanjay Dutt v State Through CBI, (1994) 5 SCC 410; Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cri.L.J. 1832. b) Ld. SPP submits that it is settled law that the investigating agency even subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by it under Section 173(2) CrPC. It was held that merely, because the prosecution had filed an application, after submission of the charge-sheet, seeking permission to file supplementary charge-sheet , it could not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance, if he was otherwise satisfied from the material placed before him along with the charge-sheet that cognizance of the offence was required to be taken. It is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and Magistrate alone to decide whether the material placed by the prosecution with the report (charge-sheet) was sufficient to take cognizance or not. The Apex court held that the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance cannot be controlled by the investigating agency, whose duty is only to investigate and place the facts and the evidence before the Magistrate. In the said case the High Court quashed the order only because it was influenced by the application filed by the prosecution seeking permission to record additional evidence and file a supplementary charge-sheet and from that it inferred that the report filed by the prosecution was 'incomplete'. It was held that it cannot be said if the inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court to apply its mind whether cognizance should be taken or not. It was further held that one of the requirements for submission of a police report is whether 'any offence' appears to have been committed and if so, by whom. Ld. SPP submits that in the present case, since upon investigation, offences mentioned therein appeared to have been committed, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed qua Respondents and other accused/entities whereby vide order dated 26.11.2021 the Ld. Special Judge took cognizance. Ld. SPP submits that a reference was also made in Dalmia (supra) to K Veerswami v Union of India Ors . (1991) 3 SCC 655, wherein it was observed that a report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. is an intimation to the Magistrate that investigating officer has procured sufficient evidence for trial of an accused by the Court and as such, it is not important whether evidence would be added later or not. j) Ld. SPP submits that the job of investigating agency is over the moment sufficient evidence is filed before the Court for taking cognizance and for trial of the accused persons so charge-sheeted. Ld. SPP contends that cognizance is one thing whilst filing of a police rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending with respect to certain facets of the case or regarding involvement of co-accused, it would not mean that investigation was incomplete against Respondents. Ld. SPP submits that in fact the Respondents never claimed that the evidence led against them was not sufficient for them to face trial. It has been submitted that even their challenge to the cognizance is on the legal aspect regarding them being termed as 'public servants', thus, facing trial for commission of offences under PC Act. d) Ld. SPP argues that in any case, separate trial is a rule and joint trial is an exception and pendency of investigation qua others would not make any difference to the present accused. Merely because investigation regarding the role of other accused was pending, does not mean that investigation regarding the role of Respondents with regards to the total embezzled amount of Rs. 34,926.77 crores had not been investigated. Ld. SPP vehemently argues that the report under section 173 report may not contain all the details of the offences, and just like an FIR/RC, even the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. is not an encyclopaedia. Reliance has been placed on the judgements in K Veer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (2013) 1 SCC 197. h) It has been submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court in its recent judgement in Anand Thanur Karmuse v State of Maharasthra , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 180, observed that the Court can order further investigation even after filing of the chargesheet and framing of charges. It is thus submitted that conduct of further investigation cannot be an impediment to the trial of an accused. i) Ld. SPP has further drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali , (2013) 5 SCC 762, relied upon by the Respondents. In the said judgement it has been held that there are three kinds of investigation i.) Initial investigation, ii) Further investigation iii) Fresh or De novo investigation. Further investigation was defined as continuation of primary investigation and is called supplementary report which is meant to supplement the primary report which is submitted by the empowered investigating officer. As stated above, it is trite that mere pendency of further investigation which is continuation of primary investigation would not give statutory right to accused for grant of bail. All that is required to be considered is, whether there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther offence regarding insider share trading was revealed during the investigation, and that by itself does not amount to incomplete investigation. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.04.2023 in Bail Appl No. 3195/2022 titled Riyazuddin v State NCT of Delhi . (ii) Regarding offences under IT Act . It is submitted that no provision of IT Act was invoked in the FIR/RC. Further as per investigation no offence under IT Act was made out. Although, forgery was mentioned, however, since FoxPro system was not integrated with Synergy system, therefore, even otherwise IT Act could not be invoked. (iii) Role of accused specifically named in FIR such as Sudhakar Shetty, M/s Amarylis Reality etc. have not been investigated. As reiterated above, it is immaterial that investigation qua other co accused is pending, as the same does not entitle the Respondents for grant of statutory bail. (iv) Trail of entire Rs. 34,926.77 crores is yet to be found out and CBI has only seized a few hundred crores. It is submitted that as held in Dalmia (supra) pendency of investigation regarding end use of funds would not be a reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within the mandatory period. The aspect of completion of investigation or what was complete chargesheet was not discussed in the said judgement. The said judgement does not help the respondents in the instant case in any manner. It is submitted that in the present case chargesheet was filed within the mandatory period, thus as narrated above, the test for grant of bail can only be considered upon merits and not under the provision of section 167(2) Cr.P.C. c) Ld. SPP for CBI further submits that in Vinay Tyagi (supra) the issue of statutory bail was not involved, on the contrary, the issue was after completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet by the police, the investigation by CBI was ordered. d) In Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir (supra) it had been reiterated by the Hon ble Supreme Court that once investigation is concluded within the mandatory period no right would accrue to the accused to be released on bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. It was further observed that filing of documents is directory and further investigation was not precluded. It was also held that investigating agency can place documents on the record even later. It was further held that report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said decision is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. h) In Hargovind Bhargava v State of M.P. (supra) the investigation was kept pending against the arrested accused to defeat the provision of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. The said judgement would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. i) Ld. SPP submits that even Satender Kumar Antil v CBI (supra) only reiterates that right u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right if the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated time. j) It has been submitted that in Rakesh Kumar Paul v State of Assam (supra) the legal position settled by Sanjay Dutt (supra) was reiterated and it was held that the indefeasible right accruing to an accused is enforceable only prior to filing of the chargesheet and it gets extinguished thereafter. However, in the present case the chargesheet was filed within the mandatory period and it was held that accused has an indefeasible right u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. k) In Chitra Ramakrishna v CBI (supra) the FIR was registered for commission of offences under IPC, PC Act and IT Act. During the pendency of the said investigation a request was received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fallacies as furthered by the petitioner CBI and at the cost of repetition, it is imperative to glance over the admitted facts as set out in the present case. c) A consortium of banks led by Union Bank of India filed a complaint with the CBI on 11.02.2022 against the Respondents and other accused persons. The crux of the allegation in the Complaint is set out as under: 27. In the above manner, the said Shri Kapil Wadhawan, Dheeraj Rajeshkumar Wadhawan, the promoters of DHFL, in conspiracy with others, including public servants, induced the DHFL Consortium Banks to sanction and disburse the loans/ advances/subscription in NCDs aggregating to Rs. 42,871.42 crores dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated such public funds raised by the said DHFL and diverted the same to the DHEL Group entities/Sahana Group Entities/other parties named above.... 28. The role of auditors of DHFL and DHFL Promoter Groups companies/Sahana Group companies may be looked into during the course of investigation ... (Emphasis supplied) d) The Complaint relied upon 3 exhaustive Forensic Audit Reports conducted by KPMG and Grant Thornton India LLP prepared on the instructions of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the respondents submits that the filing of the chargesheet was a subterfuge/ruse to defeat the indefeasible right of the Respondents to default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. Ld. Senior counsel submits that the same can be determined from a perusal of the allegations set out in the FIR as against the chargesheet and relies on the following table to draw comparison: COMPARISON OF THE FIR AND THE CHARGESHEET S.No. Individual/entity and allegation in FIR Piecemeal incomplete chargesheet 1. 66 companies with commonalities to Respondents Entities The Complaint alleges disbursal of loans aggregating to Rs. 29,100.33 crores to 66 entities by DHFL, with an outstanding amount of Rs. 29849.62 crores. Out of the 66 companies listed out in the Complaint, only 10 companies have been named Accused in the chargesheet. Thus, investigation into the outstanding amounts of the remaining 56 companies i.e., Rs. 16,480.9 crores is admittedly incomplete. 2. 65 companies with irregular loan disbursal The Complaint alleges d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is alleged that out of the 66 entities that were disbursed loans by DHFL, 16 entities/ individuals had invested more than Rs. 100 crores in shares or debentures of entities allegedly owned and controlled by the Respondents. Admittedly not investigated as per para 66 of the Chargesheet Thus, the aggregate outstanding amounts in respect of Individuals/entities that have admittedly not been investigated. Rs 30,000 crores (approx.) i) Moreover, it is submitted that major aspects of investigation as stated in the Remand Applications filed by the CBI at the time of seeking police custody of the Respondents have also not been investigated. Even though CBI sought police custody of the Respondents, even those aspects of investigation are incomplete. Ld. Senior counsel submits that thus, the investigation is incomplete even qua the Respondents, as is clear from a comparison of the Remand Applications with the chargesheet as tabulated below: COMPARISON OF THE AVERMENTS IN THE REMAND APPLICATIONS AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE CHARGESHEET S.No. Averment in Remand Application sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic servant was paid any illegal admittedly gratification/ bribe for favouring the Wadhawan brothers in the matter of sanction and disbursement of loans. Investigation into the officials of the Complainant banks as well as the National Housing Bank is pending, including the aspect of illegal gratification/ bribery. 7. Recovery of the defrauded loan amount of Rs. 34,000 crores of which the Complainant banks have suffered a wrongful loss. The CBI has managed to recover only 0.02% of the allegedly misappropriated amount. Even the impugned Order dated 03.12.2022 records that the investigation is incomplete inter alia because the CBI has recovered only a few crore rupees out of the total amount of Rs. 34,926.77 crores. 8. Acquisition of shares of Dhanalakshmi Bank, Vallash Polyplast and Wadhawan Global valued at Rs. 17.98. crores through the broker Anique Stock Broking Ltd., Mumbai, apprehended to be acquired from proceeds of the defrauded amount. The chargesheet is silent with regard to this allegation. 9. Confronting the Accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 77; Judgment dated 01.05.2023 in Crl. Appeal No. 1011 of 2023 titled Judgebir Singh v. National Investigating Agency . n) Ld. Senior counsel submits that the investigation has to be complete in respect of a case as a whole, i.e., all facts and circumstances set out in the FIR. Reliance has been placed on Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (supra); P.V. Vijayaraghavan v. C.B.I, 1984 SCC OnLine Ker 95; Tunde Gbaja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007 (95) DRJ 429, which follows the judgment of the Kerala High Court in P. V. Vijayaraghavan (supra). o) Moreover, the investigation has to be completed qua all Accused persons named in the FIR. Reliance has been placed on Hargovind Bhargava v. State of M.P. Anr ., 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12113. Further, investigation is required to be completed qua all the accused persons considering that in cases of conspiracy under Section 120-B, IPC, a joint trial is to be conducted. Reliance has been placed on State of A. P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 297 A.E. Pinto v. C.B.I ., 2002 (63) DRJ 697, to buttress this contention. p) Furthermore, default bail has been granted by this Court on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Pertinently, S. 173 (2) Cr.P.C. uses the words as soon as it is completed‟. b) This Court in Chitra Ramkrishna (supra) referring to judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Dalmia held that though further investigation is not precluded after the filing of the chargesheet however if the initial investigation arising out of the FIR itself is incomplete, the accused would be entitled to default bail. In the said case it was further held that investigation was only partly complete while investigation relating to other allegations and offences remained pending. c) It has been submitted that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Abdul Azeez v. National Investigation Agency, (2014) AIR SCW 6537, has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present matter for the following reasons: The only ground for claiming that the chargesheet was incomplete was that certain call records and foreign bank transaction details were not annexed to the chargesheet. The said judgment has been distinguished by this Court in Chitra Ramkrishna [SLP against which has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court], whereby it was held that the observations in Abdul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7(2).Cr.P.C. A categorical statement was made on behalf of the investigating agency that it did not intend to file a supplementary chargesheet, which in the view of the Court adequately protected the interests of the accused. g) Further, in Judgebir Singh v. NIA (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court has clearly held that taking cognizance is entirely different from completing the investigation. It also held that whether cognizance has been taken or not is not relevant for the purpose of compliance of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. h) Ld. Senior counsels submit that the judgment of this Court in Amarjeet Sharma v. SFIO, Bail Application No. 2710/2022 decided on 03.11.2022, is distinguishable from the present case on facts. In the said case, default bail was sought on the ground that despite 15 days lapsing after the filing of the chargesheet, there was no judicial order extending their remand as required under Section 167 and thus their custody was illegal. Completeness of the investigation was not in question before the Court. i) Ld. Senior counsels further submit that the judgement rendered in Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 197, also does not apply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the cognizance was taken vide order dated 26.11.2022 and the Applicant's application was allowed on 03.12.2022. Thus, the Applicants/Respondents availed of the remedy at the earliest opportunity and was rightly granted statutory bail by the Ld. Spl. Court. Findings Analysis 22. The Constitution of India is a fountainhead of the law of the land and procedures and is a shining light to show and guide us in order to secure the ends of the justice. Part-III of the Constitution of India confers fundamental rights. One of the most important fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India is that of personal liberty. The basic underlying idea of Part III of the Constitution of India is to protect the people against the might of the State. On the one hand, the Constitution confers extensive powers on the Government whereas under Part III certain rights have been granted to people against the executive and legislation and therefore such rights have been regarded as fundamental. Article 21 is one of the luminary provisions in the Constitution and occupies a great place of pride in the Constitution. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provides filing of the report of the police officer on completion of investigation. Section 173 (2) provides the procedure of forwarding a police report in the form prescribed by the State Government. The opening words of Section 173 provides that every investigation under this chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 173 provides that if the report under Section 173 (2) is in respect of the case where there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to take cognizance of the offence upon the police report and try the accused or commit him for trial, the police officer shall forward the documents as prescribed under section 173 (5). It is pertinent to mention here that Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. provides that even after filing of the report under section 173 (2) Cr. P.C., the police shall have the power to conduct further investigation in respect of an offence even after the report under sub Section (2) has been forwarded to the magistrate. It also provides that where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the magistrate a further report or report which in common pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after XVII which relates to the framing of charge. 29. Before proceeding further, it is also pertinent to mention that right to speedy trial also goes to the root of the fundamental rights of an individual. The Apex Court of this land has laid down time and again, that it is a right of every individual to have a fair and speedy trial. The basic purpose behind laying down the time period for completion of investigation without making any exception is to ensure that after a person is arrested the investigation should be completed without any fail and the trial should begin and be completed as expeditiously possible. 30. Sh. Anupam S. Sharma, learned special PP for CBI and Ms. Rebecca M. John, and Mr. Amit Desai, learned senior counsels for the accused persons have cited numerous judgments in support of their contentions. But I consider that the core question is very simple whether the so called charge sheet filed by the CBI against the accused persons on 15.10.2022 can be termed as a report having been filed upon completion of investigation. If this report is taken as a final report having been filed upon completion of investigation then the order of the learned Special Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. 32. This Court considers that the learned Trial has rightly made an observation that now the time has come when the legislature will have to make certain provisions where the period of investigation for such serious offences have to be extended subject to certain limitations and restrictions. It has repeatedly been held that merely because cognizance has been taken, the right to statutory bail cannot be extended or defeated. The basic parameter is that the charge sheet has been filed after the completion of the investigation or not. We have not to go by the label of the charge sheet but to examine whether actually investigation has been completed or not. If the investigation is not completed then merely because the report has been filed, the right of statutory bail cannot be defeated. Certainly it depends upon the facts of each case and no fixed formula can be laid down in this regard. 33. A perusal of the various judgments cited by the CBI and defence counsel reflects the emphasis on sufficient evidence . Thus in the report filed by the investigating agency there should be sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused. The purpose should not be merely to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous view that the charge sheet so filed on the face of it was incomplete, therefore this Court finds it difficult to interfere with the same. It is also pertinent to mention that though the cognizance has been taken in this case, which to the mind of this Court will not make any difference, in view of the fact that the charge sheet itself has been held to be incomplete. But it is imperative to mention that despite repeated directions of expeditious disposal of default bail applications by the superior Courts, in the present case, the application for default bail was filed before the learned Special Judge on 29.10.2022 and was decided on 03.12.2022. The cognizance was taken during the interregnum period. This Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the present case is an incomplete/piecemeal charge sheet and terming the same as a final report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. merely to ruse the statutory and fundamental right of default bail to the accused shall negate the provision under Section 167 Cr. PC and will also be against the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 36. I consider that the order passed by learned Sessions Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
