Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.59 seconds)Section 4 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
M Ravindran vs The Intelligence Officer Directorate ... on 26 October, 2020
32. Similar observations were made in M. Ravindran (supra) and Rakesh
Kumar Paul (supra) that if an Application for bail has been filed by the
accused even though the statutory period or Section 167(2) is not mentioned
and this has not been made a specific ground for bail but the Court may still
look into the Application and consider whether the petitioner is entitled to
bail on account of default in filing the Complaint within the statutory period.
It was observed that this entire debate of default bail must be looked at from
the point of view of expeditious conclusion of investigations and from the
angle of personal liberty and not from a purely dictionary or textual
perspective.
Dinesh Dalmia vs C.B.I on 18 September, 2007
34. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI,
(2007) 8 SCC 770, had explained that such a right of bail (default) although
is a valuable right but is a conditional one; the condition precedent being
pendency of the investigation. Whether an investigation in fact has remained
pending when the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet only
with a view to curtail the right of the accused to claim default bail, is
essentially a question of fact. "Such a question strictly does not arise in this
case inasmuch as, according to CBI, sufficient materials already available
for prosecution of the appellant. According to it, further investigation would
be inter alia necessary on certain vital points including end use of the
funds.......So long a charge-sheet is not filed within the meaning of sub-
section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, investigation remains pending. It,
however, does not preclude an investigating officer, as noticed hereinbefore,
to carry on further investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of
sub-section (8) of the Section 173 of the Code." It was further observed that
"statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an
investigation leading to filing of final form under sub-section (2) of Section
173 and further investigation contemplated under sub-section(8) thereof.
Whereas only when a charge-sheet is not filed and investigation is kept
pending, benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the
Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge-sheet is
filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
BAIL APPLN. 2017/2023 & BAIL APPLN. 2079/2023 Page 13 of 15
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:01.10.2024
16:37:41
further investigation remains pending within the meaning of sub-section (8)
of Section 173 of the Code."
Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 6 November, 2012
35. Similar observations have been made in the Case of Vipul Shital
Prasad Agarwal (supra) wherein the Apex Court observed that mere
undertaking of a further investigation either by the investigating officer on
his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a
direction by the Magistrate concerned to whom the Report is forwarded,
does not mean that the Report submitted under Section 173(2) is abandoned
or rejected.
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 3 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 February, 2013
7. It was further argued that the Charge Sheet was mandatorily required
to be filed only after completion of investigations as provided under Section
173 Cr.P.C.. The Complaint filed before the Court on 27.07.2022, cannot be
termed as a report filed on completion of the investigations. Merely because
the trial court has taken cognizance, is not relevant for consideration of bail
under Section 167 Cr.P.C., as has been observed in the Case of Suresh
Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 3 SCC 77.