Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. ceases once a charge-sheet is filed, irrespective of ongoing supplementary investigations.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Two aforesaid Bail Applications under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C., 1973‟) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain respectively, for grant of bail in CC No. 23/2022 ECIR/HQ/14/2017 dated 30.08.2017.

2. Briefly stated, FIR No. RCAC12017 A0005 was registered by CBI on 24.08.2017 against Sh. Satyendar Jain for amassing Assets disproportionate to his known sources of income i.e. under Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PCA, 1988‟). The petitioners, Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain were arrayed as co- accused on the premise that they were intentionally aiding the public servant for projecting his movable assets as their own assets, by virtue of Section 109 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC, 1860‟). The Charge-Sheet has been filed by the CBI against the co-accused, Mr. Satyendar Jain and other accused persons including the petitioners, for the offence under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Subsequently, the ECIR bearing No. ECIR/HQ/14/2017 has been registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Mr. Satyendar Jain and others.

4. The petitioners, Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain were arrested on 30.06.2022. Mr. Ankush Jain was remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2022 and Mr. Vaibhav Jain was remanded to judicial custody on 11.07.2022. It is claimed by them that in order to defeat the rights of the petitioners to get bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., filed incomplete Complaint against them on 27.07.2022 while further investigations were still pending and are still going on. The cognizance was taken by the Court on the said incomplete Complaint on 29.07.2022. This is evident as the Investigating Agency had filed an Application on 13.01.2023, to interrogate the petitioner and for recording the statements which was allowed by the Ld.Special Judge on 16.01.2023.

5. Furthermore, during the pendency of the investigation, ED has issued summons to Ms. Sushila Jain, Ms. Indu Jain, Ms. Swati Jain, for investigations on 05.12.2022 and to Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain on 22.12.2022. Pursuant to the summons, Ms. Sushila Jain joined the investigation on 14.12.2022, Ms. Indu Jain and Ms. Swati Jain joined the investigation on 14.12.2022 and on 15.12.2022 respectively and Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain joined the investigation on 11.01.2023, 19.01.2023, 23.01.2023 and 02.02.2023. These facts clearly establish that the Investigating Agency is still conducting the investigations after the expiry of the statutory period as provided under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Act, which shows that the Complaint filed against the present applicants, was incomplete and filed only to defeat the right of the petitioners to default fail.

6. The learned Special Judge dismissed the Bail Application vide Order dated 15.05.2023. The Order has been assailed on the ground that the provision of Section 167(2) has not been considered in the right perspective. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Case of "CBI vs. Kapil Wadhawan‟ Crl.M.C. No. 65