LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 24-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 677 : 2024 INSC 58
Central Bureau of Investigation 
v. 
Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2024)
24 January 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory 
right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground 
that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR 
was pending, though the report u/s.173(2) against respondents 
along with the other accused was filed within the prescribed time 
limit and the cognizance of the offence was taken by the special 
court before the consideration of the application of the respondents 
seeking default bail u/s.167(2).
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.167(2), s.173 
– Statutory right conferred under Proviso to s.167(2) – Benefit 
of – When entitled to – FIR was registered for the offences 
punishable u/s.120-B r/w s.409, 420 and 477A, IPC and s.13(2) 
r/w s.13(1)(d), PC Act, 1988 – Chargesheet for the offences 
u/s.120B r/w s.206, 409, 411, 420, 424, 465, 468 and 477A, IPC 
and s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), PC Act was filed against 75 persons/
entities including the respondents-accused – Special Court 
took the cognizance of the alleged offences against all the 
accused and issued warrants/summons – Subsequently, 
Special Court holding that the investigation was incomplete 
and the chargesheet filed was in piecemeal, respondents were 
granted default bail u/s.167(2) – Order upheld by High Court:
Held: The statutory requirement of the report/chargesheet u/s.173(2) 
would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are 
included in the report – It is complete if it is accompanied with all 
the documents and statements of witnesses as required by s.175(5) 
and it is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be 
stated – The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of s.167 
would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not 
filed and the investigation is kept pending against him – However, 
678
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
once a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases – Thus, once 
from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is 
satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance 
of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial 
whether the further investigation in terms of s.173(8) is pending 
or not – The pendency of the further investigation qua the other 
accused or for production of some documents not available at the 
time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, 
nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on 
the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet 
or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of s.173(2) – In 
the present case, the chargesheet having been filed against the 
respondents within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance 
having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly 
committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the 
statutory right of default bail u/s.167(2) on the ground that the 
investigation qua other accused was pending – Special Court as 
well as High Court committed serious error of law – Impugned 
orders set aside. [Paras 22, 23 and 25]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Right of default 
bail – Constitution of India – Article 21:
Held: Right of default bail is not only a statutory right but is a right 
that flows from Article 21 – It is an indefeasible right, however,  it is 
enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan or the chargesheet, 
and does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being 
filed, if already not availed of – Once the challan has been filed, 
the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided 
only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions 
relating to grant of bail to the accused after the filing of the challan. 
[Para 15]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Report/chargesheet 
under: 
Held: Is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into 
the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to 
procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence 
and the necessary information is being sent to the court – Though 
ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should 
accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for som

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.