Supplementary charge-sheet and default bail: cognizance need not be repeated for an added accused, but statutory bail survived delay.

Cognizance is taken of the offence, not of each individual accused, so a supplementary charge-sheet naming an additional accused did not require a fresh order of cognizance; the challenge to continued custody on that ground was rejected. Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC accrued because the supplementary charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days before the court competent to take cognizance, and administrative delay in transmission could not defeat the statutory right; release on default bail was therefore directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the continued custody of the petitioner was illegal on the ground that no cognizance had been taken qua him after the supplementary charge-sheet was filed. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the supplementary charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days before the court having jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the continued custody of the petitioner was illegal on the ground that no cognizance had been taken qua him after the supplementary charge-sheet was filed.

Analysis: Cognizance is taken of the offence and not of each individual accused. Once the competent court had taken cognizance of the offences in the FIR, a supplementary charge-sheet naming an additional accused did not require a fresh order of cognizance for that accused. The filing of a supplementary charge-sheet only brought in further material or additional accused in respect of the same offence.

Conclusion: The contention that detention became illegal for want of separate cognizance qua the petitioner was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the supplementary charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days before the court having jurisdiction.

Analysis: The right to statutory bail accrued if the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days before the court competent to take cognizance. After transfer of the case, the Special Judge (PC Act) had become functus officio and could not validly accept the supplementary charge-sheet. The charge-sheet reached the jurisdictional PMLA court only after expiry of the 90-day period, and administrative delay in transmission of the file could not defeat the accused's statutory right.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the petitioner's release on default bail was directed, while the separate plea based on absence of cognizance was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A supplementary charge-sheet filed after the statutory period does not defeat default bail unless it is filed within time before the court having jurisdiction to take cognizance, and cognizance of the same offence need not be taken afresh merely because an additional accused is subsequently named.

---