To keep the accused in custody, the investigating agency may claim that the investigation is complete, according to Justice Sharma
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that an accused person's right to statutory bail cannot be denied simply because the investigating agency filed a police report while the investigation remains unfinished.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stressed that the police have the authority to conduct additional investigations. However, the investigating agency cannot be allowed to file the police report before the investigation is completed in order to circumvent the right of the accused to statutory bail. The key requirement, according to Justice Sharma, is the completion of the investigation, not just the filing of the police report. Filing the report without completing the investigation violates Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.).
In order to keep the accused in custody, the investigating agency may claim that the investigation is complete, according to Justice Sharma. In such cases, however, the trial court should be the final arbiter.
The court emphasised that the court's role is to protect the accused's rights and to ensure strict adherence to procedures that protect an individual's fundamental rights. Simply filing an incomplete or piecemeal chargesheet cannot defeat the primary goal of Section 167 (2) of the Cr. P.C. At this point, the court cannot be expected to scrutinise the evidence to determine its sufficiency.
The court further said that Section 167 (2) of the Cr. P.C. should be interpreted in light of the legislature's three intents: ensuring a fair trial, expediting investigation and trial, and establishing a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of society's underprivileged. These goals are critical components of the overarching fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court made these observations while dismissing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) petition challenging a trial court's order granting default bail to Kapil Wadhawan and his brother Dheeraj, former promoters of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL), in a bank loan scam case.
The court stated that the material evidence presented by the CBI against the accused was insufficient to allow the trial to proceed for the serious and high-magnitude offences alleged against them. The court also agreed with the trial court that the legislature should make provisions for extending the investigation period for serious offences, subject to certain limitations and restrictions.
The court determined that the chargesheet filed by the CBI was incomplete, and that labelling it as a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C. solely to deprive the accused of their statutory and fundamental right to default bail would violate Section 167 of the Cr. P.C. and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
A previous bench recently stated that filing a piecemeal chargesheet in order to deprive the accused of their right to default bail violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
