SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE versus RAHUL MODI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 07-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 597
597
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
v.
RAHUL MODI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 185-186 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 07, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
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 charge-
sheet 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
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]
1 SCR 1037; Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410 :
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 263; M. Ravindran v. Intelligence
Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2
SCC 485 – relied on. 
Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 722 : [1996] 1 SCR 183 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
2013] 1 SCR 1037
relied on
Para 4
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 263
relied on
Para 5
[1996] 1 SCR 183
referred to.
Para 5
(2021) 2 SCC 485
relied on
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 185-186 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM-20688 of 2019 and
CRMM-20691 of 2019.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Zoheb Hussain, Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Udai
Khanna, Ujjwal Sinha, Aniket Seth, Ritwiz Rishabh, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikram Chaudhri, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Ranjit Kumar Sharma,
Dr. Monika Gusain, Mahesh Agarwal, Sanjay Aggarwal, Arshit Anand,
Pranjal Krishna, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
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. Inspectors were appointed
by the Director, SFIO to carry out the investigation. Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 were arrested pursuant to the approval granted by the Director,
SFIO on 10.12.2018. On 20.12.2018, the High Court of Delhi direct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.