Default bail depends on completed investigation, not a preliminary charge-sheet; technical return of a timely filing is insufficient.

An incomplete investigation cannot be cured by filing a preliminary charge-sheet within the statutory period, because the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC depends on completion of the investigation, not on the mere form of a filing. Where the material shows that key witnesses remain to be examined and further evidence is still to be collected, the accused's indefeasible right to default bail survives and continued detention beyond the statutory period is impermissible. By contrast, a charge-sheet filed in time but returned only for technical rectification does not, by itself, entitle the accused to default bail. On these principles, the petition was allowed and default bail granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether return of a charge-sheet filed within the statutory period on technical objections, without completion of the investigation, defeats the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether filing of only a preliminary charge-sheet while the investigation remains incomplete entitles the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether return of a charge-sheet filed within the statutory period on technical objections, without completion of the investigation, defeats the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: A charge-sheet filed within the prescribed period, if returned merely for rectifying technical defects such as supplying copies or documents, does not by itself preserve a right to default bail. The filing of such a charge-sheet within time ordinarily indicates compliance with the statutory requirement, and the accused cannot claim default bail merely because the Magistrate returned it for formal corrections.

Conclusion: This issue is answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether filing of only a preliminary charge-sheet while the investigation remains incomplete entitles the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The controlling test is completion of the investigation within the statutory period, not the mere filing of a paper styled as a charge-sheet. Where the charge-sheet itself shows that crucial witnesses remain to be examined, material evidence is still to be collected, and the investigation is expressly described as preliminary, the investigation is incomplete. Filing a preliminary or incomplete charge-sheet cannot defeat the accused's statutory and indefeasible right to default bail, and continued detention beyond the statutory period would offend the mandate underlying Section 167(2) and the protection of personal liberty.

Conclusion: This issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the accused was directed to be released on default bail, the Court holding that an incomplete investigation cannot be cured by the mere filing of a preliminary charge-sheet.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to default bail arises from failure to complete the investigation within the statutory period, and it cannot be defeated by filing an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet.

---