Default bail under CrPC cannot be defeated by a premature PMLA complaint filed before investigation is complete.

A complaint filed before completion of investigation cannot defeat the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In PMLA proceedings, a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) may serve a charge-sheet-like function, but only if it is founded on completed investigation; where investigation remained pending, the statutory right continued. The attempt to rely on Section 309 CrPC before cognizance was rejected, and the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not override default bail. Statutory bail was therefore available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the complaint filed on 19.03.2022 was not a final complaint or charge sheet, and whether such entitlement could be defeated in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the right to default bail accrues when the investigation is not completed within the statutory period and no final report or complaint based on completed investigation is filed within time. A complaint filed before completion of investigation cannot be treated as a final report for the purpose of defeating the accused's right under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court found that the complaint dated 19.03.2022 was filed while investigation was still pending, which was reinforced by the later remand extensions expressly recording that investigation remained incomplete. The Court further held that, in PMLA proceedings, the complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 serves a function similar to a charge sheet, but it must still be founded on completed investigation. The Court also rejected the attempt to rely on Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before cognizance, and held that the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be used to defeat a statutory right under Section 167(2).

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to statutory bail, and the incomplete complaint did not extinguish that right.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint or charge sheet filed before completion of investigation cannot defeat the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including in PMLA proceedings.

---