2023 (10) TMI 531 - HC - Money Laundering

Petition for Default Bail Dismissed under Cr.P.C. Section 167(2) - PMLA 2002

The court dismissed the petition seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as it found that the investigation in the first case was complete and ... Rejection of prayer for default bail - right accrued in favour of the petitioner in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the petitioner was arrested on 04.05.2023 and was remanded on 05.05.2023. The prosecution complaint being ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 was filed on 12.6.2023. The learned court has taken cognizance on 19.06.2023. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the 60 days’ period came to an end on 03.07.2023 and the petitioner filed a petition for default bail on 04.07.2023 which has been rejected by the learned court by the impugned order dated 10.07.2023. It appears that FIR bearing No. 141/ 2022 dated 04.06.2021 was registered by Bariyatu police station, Ranchi under section 420, 467, 471 of the I.P.C against one Pradip Bagchi. The petitioner being the then Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi utilized his official position and helped them in transferring of the land. The property with regard to ECIR/ RNZO/18/2022 was the subject matter of the lands which has been noted in the submission of the learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondent Enforcement Directorate (E.D)(supra). It further appears that FIR bearing No. 399 of 2022 was registered by Ranchi police and on the basis of which a separate ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 was also recorded by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D). As the charge sheet is not filed within the meaning of section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., the investigation remains pending. Filing of final report or charge sheet, however, does not preclude the investigating officer to carry on further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer for making further investigation in terms of section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., is not taken away only because a charge sheet has been filed under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. - There is no doubt that such right of bail although is a valuable right, but the same is a conditional one. The condition precedent being pendency of the investigation. Whether an investigation, in fact, has remained pending and the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet only with a view to curtail the right of the accused, would essentially be a question of fact. The materials which has come in the first ECIR, the investigation in the first case is complete and the learned court has taken the cognizance on 19.06.2023. Thus, it cannot be said that the investigation is still pending so far as ECIR/18/2022 is concerned. The another ECIR, being ECIR/10/2023 is the subject matter of other properties in which the final form has been submitted on 01.09.2023. The Court finds that it cannot be said, in the aforesaid facts, that charge sheet was not submitted within the stipulated period, and in view of that, Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is not available to the petitioner - the Court come to the conclusion that this is not a case to grant default bail to the petitioner under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the order rejecting default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.2. Examination of the completeness of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.).3. Application of legal precedents regarding default bail and investigation completion.Summary:Issue 1: Quashing of the Order Rejecting Default BailThe petitioner sought to quash the order dated 10.07.2023, which rejected default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the investigation was incomplete as of the statutory period's lapse, entitling him to default bail.Issue 2: Completeness of the Prosecution ComplaintThe petitioner, a former Deputy Commissioner, was arrested by the E.D. on allegations of irregularities in land transactions. The E.D. filed an incomplete prosecution complaint on 12.06.2023, before the statutory 60-day period ended on 03.07.2023. The petitioner argued that the investigation was ongoing, citing the summoning of Bishnu Kumar Agarwal as evidence of incomplete investigation.Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Investigation CompletionThe petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, which established that an accused is entitled to bail if the investigation is incomplete within the statutory period. The petitioner also cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Chitra Ramkrishna v. CBI, which emphasized that incomplete charge sheets cannot defeat the right to statutory bail.Court's Analysis and ConclusionThe court examined the materials on record and found that the prosecution complaint was filed on 12.06.2023, and cognizance was taken on 19.06.2023. The court noted that the investigation in the first ECIR (RNZO/18/2022) was complete, and the learned court had taken cognizance. The court referred to Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002, which allows for subsequent complaints and further investigation even after the final report is submitted.The court concluded that the investigation in the first case was complete, and the cognizance had been taken. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were on different footing as they concluded that the investigation was incomplete.Final DecisionThe petition for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the pending petition, if any, also stood dismissed accordingly.