Default bail under Section 167(2) applies where investigation is incomplete for the entire case and the charge-sheet is premature.

A final police report filed before investigation was completed for all offences arising from the same transaction was treated as incomplete for the purpose of Section 167(2) CrPC, because "case" was read as the whole transaction and a charge-sheet must follow completion of investigation in relation to the entire case. On the facts, the first report was filed while investigation into one offence remained pending, so it did not stop the accused from claiming default bail. As investigation was completed only after expiry of the 90-day statutory period, the accused became entitled to release on bail under Section 167(2), and the earlier refusal of bail was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a final report filed before completion of investigation into all offences arising from the transaction is a valid charge-sheet for the purpose of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) whether the accused became entitled to bail on expiry of the statutory period because investigation was completed only after 90 days.

Issue (i): whether a final report filed before completion of investigation into all offences arising from the transaction is a valid charge-sheet for the purpose of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Analysis: The expression "case" in the Code was construed in a broad sense to mean the whole transaction and not merely one offence within it. Investigation under Chapter XII was held to extend not only to collection of evidence but also to the formation of opinion whether there was a case to place the accused for trial. A report under Section 173 was therefore treated as one that can be filed only after completion of investigation in respect of all offences arising from the case. On the facts, the first report showed that investigation on the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. was still pending and the investigator later stated that the additional report was filed on the basis of evidence already collected earlier. The first report was thus treated as filed before investigation was complete.

Conclusion: The first charge-sheet was invalid as a completed police report because investigation in the case had not been completed.

Issue (ii): whether the accused became entitled to bail on expiry of the statutory period because investigation was completed only after 90 days

Analysis: Remand under Section 167 was held to operate only during investigation and the proviso imposed an absolute outer limit of 90 days in grave offences. Since the investigation was found to have been completed only with the later additional charge-sheet, completion occurred after expiry of the statutory period. The defect in investigation did not nullify subsequent cognizance or committal, but it did not defeat the statutory right to bail once the maximum period of detention had expired before completion of investigation.

Conclusion: The accused were entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the earlier refusal of bail was set aside, and release on bail was directed with conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the statutory right to bail under Section 167(2), investigation must be complete in relation to the entire case and all offences arising from the transaction, and a report filed before such completion is a defective charge-sheet that does not prevent the accused from claiming default bail after expiry of the prescribed detention period.

---