Mandatory bail under Section 167(2) requires expiry of investigation detention before cognizance, not merely filing of the police report.

Section 167(2) CrPC confers a mandatory right to bail only when investigation-linked detention expires without lawful transition to the cognizance stage; detention after cognizance is governed by Section 309(2), and in sessions cases the committing Magistrate may also remand under Section 209. Filing of the police report does not itself complete the investigation, because it continues until the Magistrate examines the report and takes cognizance under Section 190. On the facts, cognizance was taken within the prescribed period in both matters, and the later remand orders were under Section 309(2), so the accused were not entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused were entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the investigation was not completed and cognizance had not been taken within the prescribed period.

Analysis: The detention of an accused during investigation is governed by Section 167, while post-cognizance detention is governed by Section 309(2), and in sessions-triable matters the committing Magistrate may remand the accused under Section 209. The proviso to Section 167(2) is mandatory and confers a right to bail only when the permissible period of investigation-linked detention expires without lawful transition to the cognizance/remand stage. The Court held that investigation is not completed merely on filing of the police report; it continues until the Magistrate examines the report and takes cognizance under Section 190. On the facts, the Magistrates had taken cognizance within the prescribed period in both matters, and subsequent remand orders under Section 309(2) followed thereafter.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to release on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2), and the bail applications failed.

---