9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JUDGMENT NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. Two aforesaid Bail Applications under Section 439 read with Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., 1973 ) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain respectively, for grant of bail in CC No. 23/2022 ECIR/HQ/14/2017 dated 30.08.2017. 2. Briefly stated, FIR No. RCAC12017 A0005 was registered by CBI on 24.08.2017 against Sh. Satyendar Jain for amassing Assets disproportionate to his known sources of income i.e. under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PCA, 1988 ). The petitioners, Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain were arrayed as co-accused on the premise that they were intentionally aiding the public servant for projecting his movable assets as their own assets, by virtue of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, 1860 ). The Charge-Sheet has been filed by the CBI against the co-accused, Mr. Satyendar Jain and other accused persons including the petitioners, for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. The Complaint filed before the Court on 27.07.2022, cannot be termed as a report filed on completion of the investigations. Merely because the trial court has taken cognizance, is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C., as has been observed in the Case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 3 SCC 77 . Reliance has also been placed on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., wherein it was observed that Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. is the limb of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Investigating Agency is under a constitutional duty to conclude the investigations and file the Charge Sheet within the stipulated time failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to default bail. Reliance has been made Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67; Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616; M. Ravindran vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485; Ashok Wunilal Main Anr. vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement. Prayer is thus made that the petitioner be admitted to bail. 8. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ush Jain was Director of M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd. during the check period. This Company is one of the accused in the Prosecution Complaint filed on 27.07.2022, before the Court. The Company received proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 1,90,00,000/- during the check period in the form of accommodation entries from Kolkata based shell Companies. The applicants transferred land possessed by M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., in the name of his mother Ms. Indu Jain, to frustrate the proceeds of crime. 11. Mr. Ankush Jain has, therefore, money laundered proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 4,81,16,435/- as untainted in the mode and manner as explained above and detailed in the prosecution Complaint filed under Section 4 of PMLA Act, 2002. The Regular Bail of Mr. Ankush Jain has already been dismissed vide Order dated 17.12.2022. 12. The role of Mr. Vaibhav Jain in the prosecution Complaint has detailed that in his IDS, 2016 he declared undisclosed income of Rs.8.6 Crores including Rs. 1,53,61,166/- during the check period from 2010-11 to 2015-16, in order to save and shield Mr. Satyendar Kumar Jain, thereby concealing the true nature of proceeds of crime. He also prepared back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amin v CBI Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 417; and CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024) 3 SCC 734. 16. It is further stated that No default bail can be granted in a case where cognizance was taken. Reliance is placed on Alemla Jamir v. NIA 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2490; and Mohmed Iqbal Madar Sheik v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 722. 17. It is further contended that after the prosecution Complaint has been filed, the Bail Application is not maintainable, for which reliance has been placed on M. Ravindran vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485; Nasir Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 6 SCC 308; Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410. 18. On merits, all the averments made in the Bail Petitions, are refuted and it is asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. 19. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, have argued essentially on the same lines as stated in their respective Applications and Reply. 20. Submissions heard and record perused. 21. Admittedly, ED had filed the statutory Complaint in the Court on 27.07.2022, which was within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not invalidate or vitiate the Charge-Sheet. It is well-settled that the Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material produced along with the Charge-Sheet, the Court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and cognizance of the offence is taken. It is immaterial whether further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of further investigations qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of the Charge-Sheet, would neither vitiate the Charge-Sheet nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground of the Charge-Sheet being incomplete or not filed in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 25. In view of the aforesaid, while it is rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere cognizance does not prevent the Court to consider whether all the requisite material has been placed before the Court by way of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, however, the petitioner herein aside from making a claim that the investigations were not completed as not being able to demonstrate in what manner the Charge-Sheet does not disclose the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Paul (supra) that if an Application for bail has been filed by the accused even though the statutory period or Section 167 (2) is not mentioned and this has not been made a specific ground for bail but the Court may still look into the Application and consider whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on account of default in filing the Complaint within the statutory period. It was observed that this entire debate of default bail must be looked at from the point of view of expeditious conclusion of investigations and from the angle of personal liberty and not from a purely dictionary or textual perspective. 33. The scope of Section 167 (2) of the Code as detailed in the aforesaid Judgments, is not in dispute. The core question before this Court is under what circumstances can a Complaint filed in the Court can be considered as incomplete. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation either by the investigating officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the Magistrate concerned to whom the Report is forwarded, does not mean that the Report submitted under Section 173 (2) is abandoned or rejected. 36. Likewise in Abdul Azeez (supra), the Apex Court noted that merely because certain facets of the matter called for further investigation, it does not deem such report anything other than a final Report, merely because the bank account details and the mobile phone call details of the petitioner, as mentioned in the Charge-Sheet were yet to be verified. It was further observed that the Charge Sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge was complete in all respects so as to the enable the learned Judge, to take cognizance of the matter. 37. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Others (supra) 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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
