2023 (5) TMI 1260 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Default Bail Order, Dismisses CBI Petition

Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Kapil Wadhawan & Anr

The court upheld the order granting default bail to the respondents, dismissing the CBI's petition due to an incomplete chargesheet not meeting Section ... Seeking grant of Default Bail - criminal conspiracy thereby cheating and inducing a consortium of 17 banks led by Union Bank of India (UBI) to sanction huge loans - siphoning off and misappropriation of funds - default on repayment of the legitimate dues - HELD THAT:- The Constitution of India is a fountainhead of the law of the land and procedures and is a shining light to show and guide us in order to secure the ends of the justice. Part-III of the Constitution of India confers fundamental rights. One of the most important fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India is that of personal liberty. The basic underlying idea of Part –III of the Constitution of India is to protect the people against the might of the State - Any law in this country has to be subservient to the Constitution of India and must fulfil the object and intendment of the same. The provisions in the Cr. PC also in a way are meant to safeguard the rights of an individual. Thus, the strict adherence to the provisions of the Cr. P.C. in fact amounts to ensuring the fulfilment of the golden principles laid down in the Constitution of India. Section 57 of the Cr. P.C. provides that a person arrested cannot be detained for more than 24 hours and such person has to be produced within such time before the Court of law - It is a settled proposition that in the first 15 days, the Court can remand such accused to judicial or police custody. Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of the Cr. P.C. provides that such a custody cannot exceed 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years. Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) states that the detention cannot exceed 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. The Court is very clear in its mind that merely because in the charge sheet if the investigating agency has stated they want to conduct further investigation, the charge sheet cannot be termed as a preliminary charge sheet. The police has a right to conduct further investigation. However, at the same time, the investigating agency under the garb of further investigation cannot be allowed to file the police report without completion of investigation, only to defeat the right of statutory bail. The basic concept is that to fulfil the provision of Section 167, the charge sheet has to be filed upon completion of investigation - The material collected by the investigating agency so far, to the mind of this Court falls too short. Rather, if, this report is considered to be a complete investigation qua the accused persons, the investigating agency will suffer a lot. The Court as a guardian of the administration of justice has to ensure that there is strict compliance of the provisions. The investigating agency in its anxiety of keeping the accused persons in custody may take a plea that investigation is complete. However, the best judge in this regard should be the trial Court. This Court considers that the learned Trial has rightly made an observation that now the time has come when the legislature will have to make certain provisions where the period of investigation for such serious offences have to be extended subject to certain limitations and restrictions. It has repeatedly been held that merely because cognizance has been taken, the right to statutory bail cannot be extended or defeated - This Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the present case is an incomplete/piecemeal charge sheet and terming the same as a final report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. merely to ruse the statutory and fundamental right of default bail to the accused shall negate the provision under Section 167 Cr. PC and will also be against the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge - The Court is the guardian of the rights bestowed upon the accused persons. Strict compliance of the procedure is necessary to protect the fundamental rights of an individual. Merely, filing of the chargesheet, whether incomplete or piecemeal cannot defeat the basic purpose of Section 167 (2) Cr. P.C. - Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. must be interpretated bearing in mind the three-fold objectives expressed by the legislature namely ensuring a fair trial, expeditious investigation and trial, and establishing a rationalized procedure that protects the interests of the indigent strata of society. These objects essentially serve as components of the overarching fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Quashing and/or cancellation of default bail.2. Completeness of the chargesheet.3. Interpretation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.4. Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.Summary:1. Quashing and/or cancellation of default bail:The petitioner CBI sought quashing and/or cancellation of the order dated 03.12.2022, wherein the Ld. Spl. Judge granted default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C to the respondents. The CBI argued that once a chargesheet is filed within the stipulated time, the accused is no longer entitled to default bail. The respondents contended that the chargesheet was incomplete, thus entitling them to statutory bail.2. Completeness of the chargesheet:The chargesheet filed on 15.10.2022 against the respondents and others was within the 90-day period. However, it was argued that the chargesheet was incomplete as further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was still ongoing. The Ld. Special Judge noted that the chargesheet did not disclose complete investigation, and thus the respondents were entitled to mandatory bail. The court emphasized that filing an incomplete chargesheet cannot deprive the accused of statutory bail.3. Interpretation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. mandates that if the investigation is not completed within 60/90 days, the accused shall be released on bail. The court held that the term 'completion of investigation' is crucial, and merely filing a report without completing the investigation does not fulfill the legislative intent of Section 167(2). The court observed that the chargesheet must contain sufficient evidence to enable the court to take cognizance of the offence.4. Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution:The court reiterated that personal liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the provisions of Cr.P.C., particularly Section 167(2), are designed to protect the rights of individuals against the might of the State. The court held that the right to statutory bail is an indefeasible right if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated time.Conclusion:The court upheld the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, granting default bail to the respondents. It dismissed the petition filed by the CBI, stating that the chargesheet filed was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the need to protect the fundamental rights of the accused and ensure strict compliance with procedural laws.