Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
M. Eswarappan - Appellant
Versus
The State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P No. 20793 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act - Statutory Bail - 167(2) Cr.P.C. - 173(2) Cr.P.C. - 173(5) Cr.P.C. - 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997, sought statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below dismissed the application, stating that the final report filed by the respondent police was complete and in conformity with Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition challenging this order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the final report filed by the respondent police, which only recorded the statements of 54 depositors and filed documents pertaining to them, was not a complete final report satisfying the requirements under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to seek the indefeasible right guaranteed under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Issues: The key issue was whether the final report filed by the respondent police was complete and in conformity with Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., and whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the interpretation of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and held that the investigation can be considered complete only if a final report is filed covering all the complaints. It emphasized that the recording of 161 statements of all the complainants is essential for completing the investigation. The Court also highlighted that the filing of a charge sheet without completing the investigation will not deprive the accused from invoking for default bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the lower court and held that the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was granted bail with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3222 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge for cases under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997, at Chennai and to examine the same and to set aside the order dated 30.08.2023 and to enlarge the petitioner/2nd accused on bail.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking for statutory bail under section 167(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.G.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The respondent police registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.08 of 2022 for offence under section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as the TANPID Act) and 420 of I.P.C. on 21.07.2022, based on the complaint given by one V.Sundaram wherein, he stated that he had deposited money with the company and the same was not repaid back/ refunded after maturity. Similar such complaints started piling up before the respondent police and ultimately, 1368 complaints were received by the respondent police and it came to light that the company and its directors did not return back more than Rs.104,42,88,227/-.
4. There are totally six accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A2 and he is one of the director of the company.
5. In the course of investigation, an alteration report was filed by the respondent police and the offence under section 409 of I.P.C. was also added to the F.I.R. This was done on the 53rd day i.e on 13.07.2023 after the registration of F.I.R.
6. The petitioner earlier filed an application under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that no final report was filed even after the expiry of 60 days and that the alteration report itself was filed only to defeat the right of the petitioner to be considered for release under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The application filed by the petitioner in Crl.MP. No.2798 of 2023 came to be dismissed by the Court below by an order dated 24.07.2023 on the ground that the altered charge under section 409 of I.P.C. was brought in even before the expiry of 60 days and if at all, the petitioner has a right to seek for statutory bail, it can be done only on the completion of 90 days in view of the altered offence.
7. Subsequent to the above order, 90 days time also expired and the petitioner therefore filed an application in Crl.MP.No.3222 of 2023 seeking for statutory bail. In the meantime, a final report came to be filed by the respondent police on 16.08.2023, which is well within the 90 days period. The petitioner took a stand that an incomplete final report has been filed by the respondent police and it has been filed only with an intention to defeat the indefeasible right of the petitioner to be considered for being released on statutory bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Court below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into consideration the fact that the final report has been filed in time and the same is under the consideration of the Court, dismissed the application by an order dated 30.08.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed before this Court.
8. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the final report that has been filed by the respondent police can be considered to be a complete final report or is it an incomplete final report which has been filed only to defeat the right of the petitioner to be considered for release on statutory bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
9. There is no quarrel on the preposition of law that an incomplete charge sheet without completing the investigation cannot be put against the accused persons and the indefeasible right under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. can
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the completeness of a final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. is crucial for determining the entitlement to statutory....
Default bail – Criteria for deciding entitlement for default bail is completion of investigation and not filing of final report.
The court established that the date of e-filing is the relevant date for determining the filing of a charge sheet under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, reinforcing the principle that personal liberty mus....
The completion of the investigation within the statutory period is crucial in determining the entitlement to default bail under the NDPS Act.
The detention period for statutory bail is computed from the date of remand authorized by the Magistrate, not from the date of arrest.
(1) Default bail – An incomplete charge-sheet filed without completing investigation cannot be used to defeat right of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.(2) Default bail – Investigative a....
Right to default bail under Section 167 of the CrPC only arises prior to filing of a charge-sheet; it is not applicable once a charge-sheet has been submitted, even if further investigations are ongo....
Default bail – Petitioner is not entitled to any default bail merely because investigation has been kept open.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages in determin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
