Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Rahul Modi & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

7 February 2022

Case No.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 185-186 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

L. Nageswara Rao, Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai

Citation

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 597 : 2022 INSC 158

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.167(2) – Filing of a charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of s.167and that an accused cannot demand release on default bail under s.167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days – The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2) arises only if the chargesheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1 It is clear from the judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain that filing of a charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167, CrPC and that an accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days. The accused continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of the :accused for the purpose of remand after cognizance is taken. The conclusion of the High Court that the accused cannot be remandedbeyond the period of 60 days under Section 167 and that further remand could only be at the post-cognizance stage, is not correct in view of the judgment of this Court in Bhikamchand Jain. [Para 10][605-C-E]

2. A close scrutiny of the judgments in Sanjay Dutt, Madar Sheikh and M. Ravindran would show that there is nothing contrary to what has been decided in Bhikamchand Jain. In all these judgments which are relied upon by either side, this Court had categorically laid down that the indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Reference to cognizance in Madar Sheikh is in view of the fact situation where the application was filed after the charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance had been taken by the trial court. Such reference cannot be construed as this Court introducing an additional requirement of cognizance having to be taken within the period prescribed under proviso

(a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to default bail, even after filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period. [Para 15][607-G-H; 608-A-C] Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of

Maharashtra &Anr. (2013) 3 SCC 77 : [2013]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted. 1. The order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granting bail to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is assailed in this Appeal by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“SFIO”). 2. An investigation was directed to be conducted into the affairs of Adarsh Group of Companies and LLPs by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 and sub-sections (2) and (3)(c)(i) of Section 43 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. Inspec

View Subscription Plans →