Default bail not available after timely complaint filing, and regular bail refused in a serious economic offence

Complaint filed within the prescribed period did not create an indefeasible right to default bail merely because cognizance was taken later, and continued judicial custody was treated as lawful under the governing procedure; default bail was therefore refused. The Court also held that regular bail was unavailable because the allegations disclosed a serious economic offence involving alleged fraud and public interest concerns, and the statutory bail restriction under the Companies Act, 2013 was not satisfied on the facts. Earlier bail granted in another proceeding did not govern the present request, and release was denied on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to default bail on the ground that cognizance had not been taken when the complaint was filed within the prescribed period and remand was later extended. (ii) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of the nature of the allegations and the statutory restriction under the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to default bail on the ground that cognizance had not been taken when the complaint was filed within the prescribed period and remand was later extended.

Analysis: The complaint was filed within the stipulated period and the Court held that the right to default bail does not arise merely because cognizance was taken later. It accepted that judicial custody could continue under the governing procedural provision even after filing of the complaint, and that the absence of cognizance on the date of the bail request did not render the custody illegal. The argument based on an indefeasible right to default bail was rejected.

Conclusion: The prayer for default bail was rejected and the applicant was held not entitled to release on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of the nature of the allegations and the statutory restriction under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The allegations concerned a serious fraud causing substantial loss to public sector banks, and the Court treated the matter as an economic offence affecting public interest. It held that the restrictions under the relevant provision of the Companies Act, 2013 operated against release unless the statutory satisfaction was met, which was not found on the facts. The earlier bail granted in a different proceeding did not control the present request.

Conclusion: The prayer for regular bail was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on both the claimed grounds of default bail and regular bail, and the applicant was not granted release.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint is filed within the prescribed period, later delay in taking cognizance does not by itself create an indefeasible right to default bail, and in serious economic offences the statutory restrictions on bail must be satisfied before release can be ordered.

---