Default bail denied where the final report was filed within time and further investigation did not make the complaint incomplete.

Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was unavailable because the complaint filed on 12.06.2023 was treated as a final report after completion of investigation in the first ECIR, and cognizance had already been taken. The Court held that permissible further investigation, including a subsequent complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA, did not render the filed report incomplete; since the report was filed within the statutory period, the right to default bail did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the prosecution complaint was allegedly incomplete and investigation was still pending.

Analysis: The Court held that the complaint filed on 12.06.2023 was a final report filed after completion of the investigation in the first ECIR, and cognizance had already been taken. It accepted that further investigation is permissible even after filing of the report and that, under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a subsequent complaint may be filed in respect of further evidence. The mere fact that some facets of the matter were to be pursued further did not make the filed report an incomplete report so as to attract default bail. Since the report was filed within the statutory period, the right under Section 167(2) did not survive.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to default bail and the plea under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Default bail is unavailable where the investigation in the relevant case stands completed and a final report has been filed within the statutory period, even if further investigation on other facets or by subsequent complaint remains permissible.

---