Curable defects in a complaint do not justify default bail when investigation is complete; money-laundering bail remains subject to twin conditions.

Curable defects in a complaint filed within time do not, by themselves, create a right to default bail where the investigation is already complete and the complaint is later re-presented after correction. Under the money-laundering bail regime, release on merits depends on the statutory twin conditions: the court must have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The court accepted that section 50 statements may have evidentiary significance, but held that the prosecution material, including financial evidence, did not permit satisfaction of those conditions. Bail was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail on the ground that the complaint was filed with defects and later re-presented after curing them. (ii) Whether bail could be granted on merits in view of the restrictions under the money-laundering law and the materials relied on by the prosecution, including statements recorded under section 50.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail on the ground that the complaint was filed with defects and later re-presented after curing them.

Analysis: The complaint was filed within time, returned for curing defects, re-presented, and taken on file after the defects were cured. The defects noticed were treated as minor defects, not as a sign that the investigation was incomplete. The governing principle applied was that default bail depends on non-completion of investigation, and mere return of a complete complaint for curable defects does not create an automatic right to release.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to default bail.

Issue (ii): Whether bail could be granted on merits in view of the restrictions under the money-laundering law and the materials relied on by the prosecution, including statements recorded under section 50.

Analysis: Bail in such cases is governed by the statutory restrictions requiring the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court noted the legal position on section 50 statements and accepted that such statements may have evidentiary significance depending on context, but held that the prosecution had relied not only on those statements but also on other material and financial evidence. On that basis, it was not possible to record the satisfaction required for bail.

Conclusion: Bail was declined on merits.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications failed both on the plea of default bail and on the merits, and the accused were not enlarged on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Curable defects in a filed complaint do not by themselves attract default bail if the investigation is complete, and bail under the money-laundering law cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the statutory twin conditions based on the full material on record.

---