Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167(2) – Criminal Procedure – Default bail – Offences punishable under Section120-B r/w Section 409, 420 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 – The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167of the Code would be available to the offender only when a charge-sheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him – Once however, a charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases – Right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed under-sub-section (2) thereof against the accused – Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge-sheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the charge-sheet, that reason by it self would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet -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 takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not – The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was an incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.–Held that the charge-sheet having been filed against the respondents-accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending – Both, the Special Court as well as the High Court having committed serious error of law in disregarding the legal position enunciated and settled by this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. (Para 23 to 25)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 55 SC
[2024 INSC 58]
Central Bureau Of Investigation Vs. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11775 of 2023)-Decided on 24-1-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-55-SC.pdf
