TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the filing of the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance were invalid because investigation against the appellant remained open; (ii) Whether, after cognizance had been taken and further investigation was pending, the appellant could claim statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether remand was governed by Section 309(2) of that Code.
Issue (i): Whether the filing of the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance were invalid because investigation against the appellant remained open?
Analysis: A police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a final report enabling the Magistrate to consider taking cognizance. The fact that the accused was absconding did not prevent the investigating agency from filing a charge sheet if sufficient material existed against him. Further investigation under Section 173(8) is permissible even after cognizance has been taken, and the absence of some documents at the time of filing did not, on the facts, vitiate the charge sheet or the cognizance already taken.
Conclusion: The charge sheet and cognizance were not invalid.
Issue (ii): Whether, after cognizance had been taken and further investigation was pending, the appellant could claim statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether remand was governed by Section 309(2) of that Code?
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between pre-cognizance detention under Section 167(2) and post-cognizance remand under Section 309(2). Once a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, the right to statutory bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) ceases and does not revive merely because further investigation continues. The power of remand after cognizance is then governed by Section 309(2), and the accused was not entitled to invoke the default bail provision.
Conclusion: The appellant had no statutory right to bail under Section 167(2); remand was governed by Section 309(2).
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the post-cognizance custody and remand of the appellant were legally sustainable and the claimed default-bail right had ceased after filing of the charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken, the accused's right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) ends, and any further remand is governed by Section 309(2); pending further investigation under Section 173(8) does not revive that right.
TaxTMI 
