Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Nain, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Kesavan, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh, Adv. Ms. Sonali Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sarkar, Adv. Bhavini Srivastavam, Adv. Mr. Baibav, Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Adv. Ms. Pooja Kothari, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv. Mr. Archit Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

The legal document primarily addresses the issue of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in the context of filing a charge sheet following investigation. The key points are as follows:

1. Right to Default Bail: The right to default bail is a statutory right that also flows from the constitutional guarantee under Article 21. It is considered an indefeasible right, which means it cannot be taken away once it accrues. However, this right is only enforceable prior to the filing of the charge sheet (challan). Once the charge sheet is filed, the right to claim default bail ceases to exist (!) (!) .

2. Filing of Charge Sheet and Completeness: A charge sheet is deemed complete if it includes all the details and documents required under the law. The filing of a complete charge sheet within the statutory period is sufficient to extinguish the right to default bail, regardless of whether further investigation on some aspects or against other accused persons is pending (!) (!) .

3. Effect of Pending Further Investigation: The pendency of further investigation concerning other accused or additional documents not available at the time of filing the charge sheet does not invalidate the charge sheet nor does it entitle the accused to claim default bail. The court's focus is on whether a valid, complete charge sheet has been filed and whether cognizance has been taken (!) (!) .

4. Timing of Cognizance and Filing of Charge Sheet: The filing of the charge sheet within the prescribed period and the court taking cognizance of the offence are critical. Once these steps are completed, the accused's statutory right to default bail is extinguished, even if investigation remains ongoing against other accused persons or for additional evidence (!) (!) .

5. Jurisdiction and Legal Procedure: The legal procedure emphasizes that the court's role is to take cognizance of the offence based on the material before it, not the completeness of investigation against all accused. The filing of a charge sheet and the court’s cognizance mark the transition from investigation to trial, and the right to default bail is lost at this point (!) (!) .

6. Conclusion: If a charge sheet is filed within the statutory period and cognizance is taken, the accused cannot claim the right to default bail on the grounds that the investigation is incomplete or ongoing against other accused. Both the courts below erred by disregarding this legal position, and the orders granting default bail were set aside accordingly (!) (!) .

These points collectively clarify that the filing of a complete charge sheet within the statutory timeline and the subsequent cognizance by the court effectively terminate the right to claim default bail, regardless of ongoing investigations against other accused persons or pending additional documents.