LexENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF versus KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 721 [2021] 1 S.C.R. 721 721 ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA v. KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 701-702 of 2020) FEBRUARY 23, 2021 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2)(a)(ii) – Default bail – Issue as to whether while computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in s.167(2)(a)(ii) CrPC, the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail – Because of the conflicting view on the proposition of law for grant of default bail, a judicial conundrum has arisen which is required to be resolved for guidance of the Court – Issue referred to larger Bench – Bail. State of M.P. v. Rustom & Ors. 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221; Ravi Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 340 : [2015] 2 SCR 241; M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence (2020) SCC OnLine SC 867; Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141 : [1986] 2 SCR 1128; CBI v. Anupam J Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141: [1992] 3 SCR 158; State v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat (1996) 1 SCC 432 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 300 State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Varma (2002) 2 SCC 121 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 422; Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445 : [2011] 14 SCR 617 – referred to. Case Law Reference 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 referred to Para 5 [2015] 2 SCR 241 referred to Para 5 [1986] 2 SCR 1128 referred to Para 5 [1992] 3 SCR 158 referred to Para 6 [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 300 referred to Para 6 A B C D E F G H 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 422 referred to Para 6 [2011] 14 SCR 617 referred to Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2020 of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in LDVC Bail Application No. 400 of 2020. Surya Prakash V. Raju, ASG, Zoheb Hussain, Ms. Sairica Raju, A. Venkatesh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Zeal Shah, Vivek Gurnani, Agni Sen, Rajan K. Chourasia, B. V. Balaram Das, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Amit Desai, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, RohanDakshini, Ms. Aakanksha Saxena, Shubham Kulshreshtha, Ms. Tanvi Manchanda, E. C. Agrawala, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Amit K. Nain, Advs. for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. These Appeals are directed against the order dated 20.08.2020 of the Bombay High Court, granting default bail to the respondents under Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). The respondents were arrested on 14.05.2020 for alleged commission of offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and were remanded on the same date. On 11.07.2020 through e-mail, the Enforcement Directorate filed a Complaint and subsequently on 13.7.2020, i.e., a Monday, a physical copy thereof was tendered before the Court. The applications for enlargement of bail were moved on 13.07.2020 at 8.53 am with physical filing token being issued by 11 am. 2. It was asserted by the respondents that the period of 60 days from the date of remand i.e., 14.5.2020, expired on 12.7.2020 (Sunday) and on the next day, the bail petition was presented before the Court. The learned Special Judge however denied default bail to the respondents taking the view that the 60 days will have to be computed from 15.7.2020, by excluding the date of first remand. However, the High Court, under the impugned judgment felt that, excluding the first date of remand while computing the period of 60 days was erroneous and held that the filing A B C D E F G H 723 of the Charge Sheet by the ED on 13.7.2020, being on the 61st day, would entitle the respondents to default bail. This order of the High Court was stayed on 3.9.2020. 3. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether while computing the period of 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC, the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail. 4. The moot question has been considered by this Court in various matters, but there is divergence of opinion on how the period available for completing the investigation is to be computed. Some judgements have favoured the exclusion of date of remand, while few other cases have taken a contrary view. 5. The appellants rely inter alia on the line of reasoning in Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.