Court Grants Bail Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. despite Ongoing Investigation

The court granted bail to the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the Enforcement Directorate's investigation was ongoing despite filing a complaint. The court emphasized the statutory right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., allowing the accused to be released on bail upon meeting specified conditions. The court rejected the argument that the filing of the complaint constituted completion of the investigation, noting the ongoing nature of the inquiry. Additionally, the court highlighted that provisions allowing further investigation do not negate the requirement to complete the initial inquiry within a set timeframe.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to 'default' or 'statutory bail' under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Whether the filing of the complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) constitutes completion of the investigation.
3. The application of Section 44 Explanation (ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the context of ongoing investigations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to 'default' or 'statutory bail' under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:

The accused filed a bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking 'default' or 'statutory bail.' The primary argument was that the ED admitted its investigation was still ongoing despite filing a complaint on 30.10.2021. The accused argued that since the investigation was incomplete, they were entitled to statutory bail. The court noted that the right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is a statutory right and even considered a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that once the maximum period for investigation prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is over and no charge sheet is filed, the accused becomes entitled to be released on bail. The court concluded that the accused were entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the ED admitted the investigation was still ongoing despite filing the complaint.

2. Whether the filing of the complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) constitutes completion of the investigation:

The ED argued that it had filed the complaint within 60 days of the arrest, and thus the investigation was complete. However, the court noted that the ED's complaint mentioned that the investigation was still ongoing and that further evidence was being gathered. The court referred to several judgments, including those of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that an incomplete report does not satisfy the requirements of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and that further investigation can only be carried out after filing a complete report. The court concluded that the filing of the complaint by the ED did not constitute the completion of the investigation, as the ED itself admitted that the investigation was still ongoing.

3. The application of Section 44 Explanation (ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the context of ongoing investigations:

The ED argued that Section 44 Explanation (ii) of the PMLA allows for further investigation and filing of subsequent complaints even after filing the initial complaint. The court noted that this provision is similar to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which allows for further investigation if new evidence is obtained. However, the court emphasized that this provision does not preclude the requirement to complete the initial investigation within the prescribed time frame. The court reasoned that if no time frame is fixed for completing the investigation, it would be unfair to keep the accused in judicial custody indefinitely. The court concluded that Section 44 Explanation (ii) of the PMLA cannot be taken to defeat the purpose of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which mandates the completion of the investigation within a specific time frame.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the bail application, ordering the accused to be admitted on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of equal amount, subject to several conditions, including not leaving the country without court permission, not tampering with evidence, not contacting witnesses, surrendering passports, and joining the investigation as required. The court emphasized that the accused were entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the ED's investigation was still ongoing despite filing the complaint.

---