-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
Apex Court laid down in recent judgement 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 the statutory period.
Inspectors were appointed by the Director, SFIO to carry out the investigation. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested . High Court directed interim release of Respondent but order set aside by Supreme Court on 27.03.2019 - Criminal complaint filed before the Special Court on 18.05.2019 - Respondent filed statutory bail on 20.05.2019 - dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 22.05.2019 on the ground that the complaint under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was filed before the expiry of the 60-day period - High Court directed release on bail - entitled to statutory bail - Aggrieved state approached Apex court.
Appellant contended that High Court has committed an egregious error in holding that cognizance also has to be taken before the expiry of the 60-day period. The accused would have been entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC, if the investigation had not been completed. Bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC can only be granted if an investigation is not complete within the prescribed period and not otherwise.
Respondents/accused opposed the bail and contended that the High Court was justified in granting statutory bail to them as cognizance was not taken before the expiry of the 60-day period.
whether an accused is entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, from the date of remand.
Apex Court laid down in recent judgement 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 the statutory period.
D.D- February 07, 2022.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Rahul Modi & Ors.
