Default bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is unavailable where the special complaint-based procedure governs investigation and cognizance.

Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act follow a special statutory scheme for investigation and cognizance, and the Code's requirement of a police report under Section 173(2) does not apply. Because cognizance under the Act is taken on a complaint by the authorised authority and the Act operates with overriding effect, the petitioner could not claim default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code on the footing that no police report was filed within 60 days. The authorised authority had in any event filed the complaint within the period relied upon. Default bail was therefore not available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that no police report had been filed within 60 days in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The special statute regulates investigation, cognizance, and trial through its own scheme. The definition of investigation under the Act includes proceedings conducted by the authorised authority for collection of evidence. Cognizance for an offence under the Act can be taken only on a complaint by the authorised authority, and the Act contains a non-obstante clause with overriding effect. The Court held that, in view of this special framework, the requirement of filing a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code does not govern proceedings under the Act. Even otherwise, the authorised authority had filed the complaint within the period relied upon by the petitioner.

Conclusion: Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not confer a right to bail in the facts of the case, and the petitioner was not entitled to default bail.

---