The main legal principle established is that the accused is entitled to default bail if the investigation is not completed within the mandated period, as per the legislative intent of section 167(2) of the Code.

JUDGMENT

Rohit B. Deo, J. - Heard Mr. Mahesh Rai, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.A. Thakre, the learned APP for nonapplicant/State.

2. The applicant, who is arraigned as accused 1 in Crime 427/2020, registered with Police Station, Ballarshah, Dist Chandrapur, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 109 read with section 34 of India Penal Code ("IPC") and sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,1999 ("MPID Act"), is assailing the order dated 14.10.2020, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Special Case (MPID) 138/2020, whereby the application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail under the provisions of section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Code") is rejected.

3. Before adverting to the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Mahesh Rai and the learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre, it would be apposite to note the relevant facts, which are either admitted or are irrefutable.

3.1 The applicant was arrested on 13.7.2020 and was produced before the jurisdictional Court on 14.7.2020 and was remanded to police custody, and at a later stage to judicial custody.

3.2 Excluding the day on which the applicant was remanded to custody, the 90 days period to complete the investigation expired on 12.10.2020.

3.3 The applicant, assuming that the 90 days period expired on 11.10.2020, preferred application dated 12.10.2020 at 11.10 p.m. seeking default or compulsive bail under section 167(2) of the Code.

3.4 The prosecution submitted its response on 13.10.2020, opposing the application seeking default or compulsive bail, on the premise that the charge-sheet is filed on 7.10.2020.

3.5 The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur rejected the application seeking default or compulsive bail noting that the charge-sheet was as a fact submitted on 7.10.2020 and was verified and registered on 12.10.2020 and 13.10.2020, respectively, in view of the directions issued, as a measure to control and counter the COVID-19 pandemic, that the charge-sheets are required to be kept insulated for three days. The learned Sessions Judge also wrongly assumed that the 90th day to complete the investigation expired on 11.10.2020.

3.6 It is not even the case of the applicant, that the charge-sheet was not submitted or filed before the concerned court clerk or that the charge-sheet filed was not complete.

4. The short submission canvased by the learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Rai, relying on the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Master Bholu through his father and natural guardian Vinod Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cri. Appeal S-646-SB of 2018) ("Master Bholu"), is that the filing of the charge-sheet with the concerned court clerk is of no avail to the prosecution, and that since the charge-sheet was actually placed before the learned Judge on 13.10.2020, which was the 91st day, the applicant was entitled to default or compulsive bail under section 167(2) of the Code. Mr. Mahesh Rai would invite my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Kasi vs. State thrrough The Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District (Cri. Appeal 452/2020) which articulates that the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition 3/2020 cannot be understood to mean that the period of filing charge-sheet as contemplated under section 167(2) of the Code is extended.

5. In rebuttal, the learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre would submit that the statutory scheme focuses on the completion of the investigation within the mandated period and the right of the accused to default or compulsive bail if the investigation is not completed. The learned APP would submit that the concept of taking cognizance is unknown to the statutory scheme, and therefore, if the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed with the concerned court official, the fact that the charge-she