TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the applicants were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the filing of a complaint by the Enforcement Directorate within the prescribed period, when the complaint itself stated that investigation was still continuing. (ii) Whether Section 44 Explanation (ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits continued investigation and subsequent complaint in a manner that defeats the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the applicants were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the filing of a complaint by the Enforcement Directorate within the prescribed period, when the complaint itself stated that investigation was still continuing.
Analysis: The right to default bail accrues when the investigation is not completed within the statutory period and no complete report is filed. A report or complaint filed before completion of investigation cannot be treated as a finished investigation merely because it is presented within time. The complaint in the present matter itself recorded that further investigation was continuing and that the remaining proceeds of crime were still being traced, showing that the investigation against the applicants had not reached completion. The statutory protection under Section 167(2) is intended to prevent prolonged custody without completion of investigation.
Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to default bail; the complaint did not defeat their claim under Section 167(2).
Issue (ii): Whether Section 44 Explanation (ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits continued investigation and subsequent complaint in a manner that defeats the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 44 Explanation (ii) recognises the possibility of further investigation and a subsequent complaint after a complaint has already been filed. That provision is analogous in effect to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but it does not authorise an indefinite or piecemeal investigation so as to nullify the statutory time limit governing custody. The ability to pursue further investigation cannot be used to postpone the stage at which the accused becomes entitled to default bail.
Conclusion: Section 44 Explanation (ii) does not override or defeat the applicants' right to default bail under Section 167(2).
Final Conclusion: The applicants were ordered to be released on bail because the investigation was not complete within the statutory period, notwithstanding the filing of the complaint and the possibility of further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a complaint filed within time does not prevent default bail if the complaint itself shows that investigation is still incomplete and continuing; the power of further investigation cannot be used to defeat the statutory right to bail.
TaxTMI 
