SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Ferose S/o Ismayil – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 706 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : R. Sankara Subbu, S. Mohamed Ansar
For the Respondents: A.R.L. Sundaresan, R. Karthikeyan

The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. ceases once a charge sheet is filed, regardless of pending investigations.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 18, 43D - Bail application rejected by Special Court - The appellants contended that the investigation was incomplete and the charge sheet filed was not valid under Section 167(2) - The court held that the charge sheet was filed within the stipulated time and the application for Narco Analysis pending does not invalidate the charge sheet - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 5, 14, 17)

(B) Legal Principles - The statutory right to default bail under Section 167(2) is not available once a charge sheet is filed, even if further investigation is pending. (Paras 6, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, accused in a case involving an explosion, filed a bail application which was rejected by the trial court, leading to this appeal. The investigation was taken over by the National Investigation Agency due to the gravity of the offense. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found no infirmity in the trial court's order rejecting the bail application, as the charge sheet was filed within the required timeframe. (Paras 17)

Issues: Whether the bail application should have been granted under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. given the pending investigation. (Paras 5, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the filing of a charge sheet negates the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., regardless of pending investigations. (Paras 15)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(1) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, calling for the records and set aside the order dated 18.05.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 759 of 2023 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Chennai in R.C. No. 01/2022/NIA/CHE on the file of the respondent and enlarge the appellants on bail in R.C. No. 01/2022/NIA/CHE on the file of the respondent.

1. Under assail in the present criminal appeal is the order passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 dated 18.05.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 759 of 2023 in R.C. No. 01/2022/NIA/CHE.

2. The appellants herein are the accused nos.4, 5 and 6. They filed bail application before the trial court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The trial court adjudicated the issues and rejected the application, which resulted institution of the present appeal before this court.

3. The facts in nutshell are that, on 23.10.2022, at 0400 hours, an explosion had taken place in front of a temple, namely Arulmigu Kottai Sangameshwarar Thirukovil at Eswaran Kovil Street, Ukkadam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, wherein a Maruti car bearing Registration No. TN-01-F-6163 was set ablaze. The car was driven by Mr. A. Jamesha Mubeen S/o Abdul Kadar (Late), who was a resident of 19/61 HMPK Street, Kottaimedu, Ukkadam, Coimbatore. Based on the written complaint of the priest, a case was registered at Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore City, in Crime No. 207 of 2022 under Sections 174 of Cr.P.C. and 3 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, dated 23.10.2022. The Central Government had received information regarding the same and it was opined that a Scheduled Offence under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been committed.

4. Having regard to the gravity of the offense and national and international ramifications, the Central Government thought it fit and took a decision that an investigation must be done by the National Investigation Agency and accordingly, passed an order in proceedings dated 27.10.2022. Consequently, the investigation has been taken up by the National Investigation Agency. F.I.R. has been registered under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in NIA Police Station, Chennai, and the original F.I.R. submitted before the Special Court was also taken up for Investigation and relevant provisions under law were altered to Sections 120B, 153A IPC, Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The accused persons 4, 5 and 6 / appellants herein were arrested on 25.10.2022 at 02.45 hrs and remanded on 25.10.2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore.

5. In the above backdrop, Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the bail application was filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the final report has not been filed before the Special Court. Mere filing of a report would be insufficient to comply with the requirements contemplated under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and thus, the bail application ought to have been considered by the trial Court under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is mainly contended that the investigation was incomplete and certain expert reports sent for analysis are also pending. When the investigation is incomplete and police custody petition filed in Crl. M.P. No. 614 of 2023 is pending, the charge sheet filed by the respondent cannot be construed with reference to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and thus, the present appeal is to be considered.

6. In support of the above contention, Mr. R.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 66 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation that the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top