Default bail under Section 167(2) ends once a timely complete charge-sheet is filed, even if further investigation continues.

Default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available only until a complete police report under Section 173(2) is filed within time. A report is complete when the prescribed particulars are furnished and sufficient material for cognizance is placed before the court; pending further investigation under Section 173(8) against other accused does not revive the statutory bail right. Taking cognizance does not alter this position, because custody then falls under the post-cognizance regime and cognizance is of the offence, not the offender. Orders granting default bail on these grounds were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the filing of a charge-sheet against the accused within the prescribed period, coupled with pendency of further investigation against some other accused, entitled the respondents to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the taking of cognizance by the Special Court had any bearing on the respondents' claim for statutory bail.

Issue (i): Whether the filing of a charge-sheet against the accused within the prescribed period, coupled with pendency of further investigation against some other accused, entitled the respondents to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The right to default bail is an indefeasible statutory right, but it is enforceable only before filing of the police report under Section 173(2). A report under Section 173(2) is complete when the prescribed particulars are furnished and material sufficient for cognizance is placed before the court. Pending further investigation under Section 173(8), or omission to file all material at once, does not by itself render the report incomplete or revive the right under Section 167(2).

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to default bail on the ground that further investigation against other accused was pending.

Issue (ii): Whether the taking of cognizance by the Special Court had any bearing on the respondents' claim for statutory bail.

Analysis: Once the charge-sheet is filed within time, the stage governed by Section 167 ends and the custody thereafter is governed by the post-cognizance regime. Cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender, and the existence of cognizance does not sustain a claim for default bail where the police report was filed within time. The pendency of later investigative steps does not displace this position.

Conclusion: The taking of cognizance did not support the respondents' claim to statutory bail.

Final Conclusion: The orders granting default bail were unsustainable in law and were set aside, and the respondents' release on that basis could not continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Default bail under Section 167(2) is available only until a complete police report under Section 173(2) is filed within time, and it is not revived merely because further investigation continues or cognizance is taken thereafter.

---