Subhra Jyoti Bharali Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Gauhati High Court)
Section 173 of the CrPC does not prescribe piecemeal investigation and filing of incomplete charge sheet before the court. Section 173(8) CrPC prescribes that even after filing of charge sheet further investigation can be done. In that case, if the investigating officer gathers additional evidence, he can produce it after filing of the charge sheet. The law does not permit the State to expand the maximum period stipulated under Section 167(2) CrPC by filing supplementary charge sheet.
This Court has the reason to hold that the incomplete complaint (charge sheet in CrPC parlance) filed against the petitioner is against the law stipulated by Section 173 CrPC because law does not permit piecemeal investigation. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC because investigation of the case is not yet complete.
For the said reasons, the petitioner Sri Subhra Jyoti Bharali is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,000,00/- (Rupees One Lakh) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Kamrup(M), Guwahati subject certain conditions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel, E.D.
2. This is an application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 401 of the said Code whereby the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Special (PMLA) Case No.41/2022 is put to challenge.
3. The short question that is to be decided by this Court is as to whether, after filling of a complaint and when the further investigation is still pending, the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
4. The petitioner is the Managing Director of Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited. An allegation has been made against him and 7 other persons alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.9,50,61,499/-. In the FIR itself, it has been specifically shown as under on what heads the money was misappropriated-
