The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is contingent upon the completion of the investigation within the stipulated period.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing along with Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, the learned assisting counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I appearing on behalf of the respondent Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.).

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.07.2023 in M.C.A No.2022/2023 whereby the default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Court.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner served as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi between July, 2020 to July, 2022 and was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on 04.05.2023 based on the allegations of irregularities in the registration and mutation of the landed properties in Ranchi on the allegation that the petitioner has helped by illegally transferring the lands in question. He submits that on the basis of the allegations, in course of the investigation, ECIR/ RNZO/ 18/ 2022 (ECIR 18/ 2022) was registered. He submits that the remand application was filed on 05.05.2023 in ECIR Case No.01/2023 (arising out of ECIR 18/2022), pursuant to that the petitioner was remanded under section 167 Cr.P.C. He submits that the allegations are there that the petitioner was connected to transactions relating to five separate landed properties, such as, Morabadi property, Cheshire Home property, Pugru property, Bajra property and the property in Khata No.256. He further submits that ECIR Case No.01/2023 (arising out of ECIR Case No.18/2022) was filed by the Opposite party subsequently on 12.06.2023 and by way of referring this he submits that the balance investigation with regard to the property in question was going on. He submits that incomplete prosecution complaint on 12.06.2023 prior to lapse of statutory period of 60 days on 03.07.2023 was filed by the Enforcement Directorate. He draws the attention of the Court to the remand order dated 05.05.2023 contained in Annexure-13 and submits that the paragraph no.7 to 17 of ECIR Case No.18/2022 was considered by the learned Special Judge for remand of the petitioner. By way of referring to paragraph no.11 of the ECIR Case No.01/2023 in ECIR Case No.18/2022. He submits that one Bishnu Kumar Agarwal case was further being investigated and in view of that it is established fact that the investigation was not completed. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-19, which is the summon issued to one Bishnu Kumar Agarwal in ECIR Case No.18/2022 and submits that this document suggest that the investigation with regard to the same case, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was also summoned. He further submits that even after purported ECIR, the petitioner was summoned. He further submits that if the investigation is not complete in 60 days, on 61 days, the right is accrued in favour of the petitioner in light of Subsection (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is entitled for default bail. He submits that so far as ECIR Case No.18/2022 is concerned, there is another scheduled offence which is being investigated. He further submits that the law is well settled by 3-Judges Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, reported in, (2001) 5 SCC 453 and he refers to the conclusion of paragraph no.13, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come to the following conclusions, which are quoted below:

“13 … ….

1. Under sub-section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate before whom an accused is produced while the police is investigating into the offence can authorise detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days on the whole.

2. Under the proviso to the aforesaid sub-section (2) of Section 167, the Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused otherwise than in the custody of police for a total period not exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to offence