The completion of investigation, including the formation of opinion, is essential before filing a charge-sheet, and the entitlement to bail under S. 167(2) is contingent on the completion of investigation within the specified period.

Revision petitioners are accused in R.C. 3 of 1982 of the CBI/SPE, New Delhi arising from the death, by gunshot wounds, of George Soman, Sub-Inspector of Police, Panur Police Station. They were arrested on 11-11-1983. Their request for bail was repeatedly turned down by various courts. Period of 90 days "as contemplated in Proviso (a)(i) to S. 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. (for short 'the Code') was over on 9-2-1984. The investigator filed a Final Report or charge-sheet for offences under S. 120B read with "S. 302 I.P.C. and S. 302 I.P.C. read with S. 34 I.P.C. on 7-2-1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. An additional charge-sheet for offences under S. 120B read with S. 201 I.P.C. and S. 201 I.P.C. read with S. 34 I.P.C. was filed on 15-2-1984. Meanwhile the accused filed Crl M.P. 461 of 1984 seeking bail under Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of the Code pleading that no valid charge-sheet had been filed within 90 days. This contention was overruled and the petition, was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The legality and propriety of this order is challenged in this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the Code does not contemplate piecemeal investigation and imcomplete charge sheet, that Section 173 contemplates only the filing of charge-sheet after completion of investigation of the case, and where several offences are involved in a case, a valid charge-sheet could be laid only after investigation and formation of opinion regarding all the offences is complete, that in the first charge-sheet the investigator stated that investigation was proceeding and an additional charge-sheet would be laid and this would clearly show that when the first charge-sheet was laid investigation was incomplete. Thus, learned counsel would contend that the first charge-sheet filed on 7-2-1984 was a charge-sheet filed without completing the investigation and was as such invalid and therefore detention after a period of 90 days would be illegal and accused are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Learned counsel drew a distinction between an "offence" and a "case". According to him, what is contemplated is completion of investigation of the "case" which may involve" several offences and investigation of a case cannot be split up into several investigations or investigation in several stages each 'relating to one offence. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is practically no difference between an "offence" and a "case", that, as a matter of fact, investigation was complete before the first charge-sheet was laid, though an erroneous statement was made therein that investigation was proceeding, that the second charge-sheet and the accompanying ' memo would clearly show that investigation was over before the first charge-sheet was laid. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the investigator could very well have incorporated S. 201 I.P.C. in the first charge-sheet but it was postponed awaiting legal opinion. In these circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the charge-sheet was valid as investigation was complete before the first charge-sheet. Therefore, the period of detention prior to completion of investigation did not exceed the period of 90 days and as such bail could not be granted in terms of Proviso (a)(i) to S. 167(2) of the Code.

3. Chapter V of the Code deals with arrest of persons. S. 41(1)(a) authorises a police officer to arrest a person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant The procedure for arrest and the steps to be taken are dealt with in Sections 46 and 47 of the Code. S. 56 requires that a police officer making arrest without warrant shall without unnecessary delay and subject to bail provisions take or send the arrested person before the appropriate Magistrate. S. 57 states that no police officer shall detain in custody a person without warr