The Delhi High Court has pronounced that the practice of filing fragmented charge sheets is in direct violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court highlighted that a chargesheet should only be filed when the investigation related to the First Information Report is fully completed, and a definite opinion has been formed regarding the alleged offences against the accused.
Brief Facts:
A Bail Application was filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) to the High Court, seeking appropriate orders and directions to grant statutory/default bail to the Petitioner and secure their release from custody.
Brief Background:
An FIR was registered based on a complaint filed by the Deputy General Manager of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “SBI”), on behalf of a consortium of six banks. The complaint alleged that M/s Arise India Ltd., its directors including the Applicant, and unidentified public servants had obtained credit facilities from the consortium of banks, led by SBI, and had diverted the borrowed funds for unauthorized purposes. The company's loan account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as “NPA”) by SBI and other banks in the consortium, with a total outstanding amount of Rs. 512.67 Crores. After a forensic audit, SBI declared the company's account as fraudulent.
An FIR was filed in November 2020, against M/s Arise India Ltd., the Applicant Avinash Jain, Virender Mishra, Rajnish, unidentified public servants, and other unknown private individuals. The charges included offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), as well as Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”).
The Applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for one day. A chargesheet was filed against the Applicant and other Accused persons. The chargesheet mentioned that further investigation was ongoing as per Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
An application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was submitted on behalf of the Applicant. However, it was dismissed by Special Judge in New Delhi.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was contended that the chargesheet was incomplete as it did not address offences committed under the PC Act and Section 468 of the IPC. It was argued that out of eleven allegations mentioned in the FIR, only five had been investigated by the CBI, making the chargesheet incomplete.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that the allegations in the FIR were investigated, and a chargesheet was filed based on the allegations for which sufficient evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that there was no restriction on further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and therefore, labelling the chargesheet as incomplete due to ongoing investigation regarding the applicant was unfounded.
Observations of the Court:
The Court thoroughly examined the facts and circumstances of the case and expounded that a chargesheet could only be filed when the investigation related to the FIR had been completed and an opinion had been formed regarding the alleged offences against the accused. It was ruled that the investigating agency was not allowed to fragment or divide the FIR and file separate chargesheets. Doing so would violate the rights of the accused under Section 167(2) of the CrPC and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Bench emphasised that filing a supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the CrPC did not change the nature of the initial chargesheet or deem it complete. The Court clarified that the investigation from the FIR remained incomplete as only one part, concerning the diversion of borrowed funds, had been concluded, while the other part involving connivance or conspiracy with unknown public servants was still pending.
The Delhi High Court made it clear that permitting the CBI to select one aspect of the investigation and file a fragmented chargesheet, thus depriving the applicant of default bail, was contrary to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court accordingly, allowed the Bail Application under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Case Title: Avinash Jain v Central Bureau Of Investigation
Case No.: Bail Application No 583 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Pratyansh Pandey, Mr. Arun Kanwa, Ms.Namisha Jain & Mr. Rudraksh Nakra
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Anupam S. Sharma Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr.Prakarsh Airan and Mr. Abhishek
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
