Constructive custody and default bail: interim bail did not create custody, and the charge-sheet was not incomplete.

Interim bail did not amount to constructive custody for default-bail purposes because custody requires physical control, remand, or submission to the court's jurisdiction, and a person already released on bail cannot be treated as detained. On that basis, the default-bail claim failed. The court also held that a charge-sheet was not rendered incomplete merely because it referred to further evidence or possible additional material, since further evidence may still be collected or produced during investigation or trial under the criminal procedure framework. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to default bail on either ground, and the challenge to rejection of the bail application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person released on interim bail could be treated as being in constructive custody for the purpose of default bail, and whether the filing of the charge-sheet was incomplete so as to entitle the petitioner to default bail.

Analysis: The Court held that custody, for bail purposes, means physical control, remand, or submission to the court's jurisdiction, and that a person already released on interim bail cannot be treated as being in constructive custody. Relying on the settled understanding of custody, the Court found that bail presupposes detention and that treating a bailed person as in custody would be inconsistent. On the charge-sheet issue, the Court held that the reference to further evidence and the possibility of filing additional material did not make the charge-sheet incomplete, because additional evidence may be produced later during investigation or trial under the criminal procedure law.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to default bail on either ground, and the challenge to the rejection of the default bail application failed.

---