Priyanshu Gairola vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 219 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Priyanshu Gairola vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 May, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal

                       8th May 2025
           First Bail Application No. 476 of 2025

Priyanshu Gairola                           ............... Applicant
                               Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
                                            ............Respondents

Counsel for the applicant: Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel

Counsel for the State: Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned A.G.A. Counsel for the complainant: Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel

(Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

1. Yesterday, the issue came up for consideration whether the charge sheet in the present case is a charge sheet in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. as well as in terms of Section 193(3) of BNSS 2023, since, in the charge sheet it is mentioned by the I.O. that the part investigation against the rest of the accused is still going on.

2. In reference to this, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the complainant first of all give reference of sections 169 and 170, 173 (8) Cr.P.C. including Section 193(9) of BNSS 2023 and one of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Kapil Wadhawan and anr., by placing reference of para 22, 25, 30 and 31 wherein it has been held that " if the investigation is not completed then merely because the report has been filed, the right of statutory bail cannot be defeated"

3. This judgment was challenged by the CBI before the Hon'ble Apex Court, CBI vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another, (2024) 3 SCC 734, the analysis starts from

para 13 dealt with in para 20 and 21 and the final conclusion is in para 22. In para 21, a reference is made of earlier judgment of the Constitutional Bench in the case of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India, (1991) 3SCC 655, which reads as under:-

"76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information;(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (c) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar, (1980) 3 SCC 152 that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This repost is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a 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. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence."

4. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel submits that in view of this judgment and also in view of the earlier judgment of Constitutional Bench in the case of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (supra) the charge sheet must be in the form prescribed by the State

Government by containing the requirements as contained in 173(2)(i) and once these requirements are fulfilled in the charge sheet then it is a complete charge sheet. He further submits that charge sheet is nothing but a report of the investigating officer in the form of an intimation to the Magistrate, and, furthermore the charge sheet under section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the investigating officer. He further reiterate his arguments by saying that the report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5) Cr.P.C. and nothing more need to be stated in the report of the investigating officer.

5. The submissions as advanced in this regard though in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not acceptable particularly in view of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The mandate of Section 173 Cr.P.C. is very clear that the charge sheet has to be filed only on completion of the investigation.

6. Here in the present case in the charge sheet reference has been made that part investigation is still going on against other co-accused persons, therefore, the question again arise particularly in view of Section 173(2)(i) whether giving reference of part investigation against other co-accused is the complete charge sheet against the applicant.

7. Mr. Bisht, learned A.G.A. place before this Court another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 502 wherein issue of default bail was raised

that charge sheet has not been filed within stipulated period. Three issues were framed in para 9 of the judgment which reads as follows:-

(i) Can a charge sheet or a prosecution complaint be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case?

(ii) Whether the filing of such a chargesheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right of an accused for grant of default bail:

(iii) Whether the remand of an accused can be continue by the trial court during the pendency of investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CRPC?

Issue no. 1 and 2 are relevant and answer to these issues were dealt with in para 16, 17, 19 and 20 and the conclusion is drawn in para 34.

On examining the conclusion as drawn in para 34 of the judgment in the case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra) the argument of Mr. Aditya Singh is not acceptable. The judgment relied upon by the State Counsel has not been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied upon by Mr. Aditya Singh.

8. Put up this matter on 14.05.2025.

9. In the meantime, State Counsel may get instructions whether the trial has been commenced or not by framing charge and what is the status of the proceeding before the trial court after taking cognizance on the charge sheet.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) Parul