Default bail and GST complaints: a timely authorised-officer complaint can satisfy Section 167 and defeat bail on charge-sheet grounds.

In prosecutions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 depends on whether the statutory requirements are unmet. The Court treated a timely complaint by an authorised officer, supported by material and witnesses, as sufficient for Section 167 purposes even though it was not a police report under Section 173. It held that investigation under a special fiscal statute is not confined to police investigation and that the absence of a police charge sheet does not, by itself, create a right to default bail. The refusal of default bail was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that no charge sheet was filed within the prescribed period and the prosecution proceeded by complaint under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The accused's right to default bail arises only when the statutory conditions under Section 167(2) are not satisfied. The proceedings arose from offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where arrest and investigation powers are vested in authorised officers and cognizance may be taken on a complaint. The Court treated the complaint filed by the authorised officer, along with supporting material and list of witnesses, as sufficient for the purpose of Section 167 of the Code, even though it was not a police report under Section 173. It held that investigation in such special-statute offences is not confined to police investigation, and the filing of a complaint within time met the requirement that otherwise supports the claim for default bail. The material collected was held sufficient to disclose a prima facie case, and the fact that further investigation might continue did not negate the validity of the complaint for present purposes.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to default bail, and the challenge to the refusal of bail failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal did not succeed and the refusal to enlarge the appellants on default bail was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under a special fiscal statute where cognizance is taken on a complaint filed by an authorised officer within the prescribed period, the absence of a police charge sheet does not by itself confer default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---