Joy Modak @ Jay Modak vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court held that the chargesheet filed by the CBI on November 30, 2024, was within the statutory period prescribed by law. The Court reasoned that the Special Judge had endorsed the chargesheet and had not disagreed with or ignored the Investigating Officer's opinion. While the Special Judge directed the CBI to submit the relevant documents at the earliest, finding that they were not submitted along with the chargesheet, this did not render the chargesheet invalid or outside the statutory period. The Court also noted that the Special Judge had not rejected the CBI's prayer to keep original seized documents and witness statements with the CBI for further investigation. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court affirmed that filing a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC amounts to completion of the report, and further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is permissible. The Court found no prejudice to the accused in such circumstances. The petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate forum for regular bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Joy Modak, sought bail in a case registered under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He claimed to be a businessman and a partner in GoMillions LLP, which he stated had all necessary registrations, including GST. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with others, ran a stock trading business under the guise of GoMillions LLP, inducing the public to invest with promises of high returns, thereby collecting huge amounts of public deposits. The prosecution contended that the collected money was diverted for personal gain, constituting a financial scam and misappropriation of funds. The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated and that the FIR lacked specific details of investors or the period of alleged illegal activity. The CBI filed a chargesheet on November 30, 2024, but the petitioner claimed it was incomplete and returned by the Special Judge due to missing documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the chargesheet filed by the CBI on November 30, 2024, was within the statutory period, considering the petitioner's contention that it was incomplete and returned by the Special Judge due to missing documents, and the CBI's own statement that the case was under further investigation? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Petitioner's arguments: The chargesheet was incomplete and filed beyond the statutory period, as indicated by the CBI's own submission that further investigation was ongoing, vital documents were yet to be collected, and witnesses were to be examined. The Special Judge's action of returning the chargesheet further supported this claim. Revenue/State's (CBI) arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the CBI regarding the completeness or timeliness of the chargesheet. However, the CBI's written objection and the subsequent filings suggest they maintained the chargesheet was validly filed, and the Special Judge's endorsement indicates acceptance of the report, albeit with a direction to submit missing documents.