Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The reasoning was based on the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of the Apex Court concerning the right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Court found that the period of 60 days for investigation had elapsed without the filing of a charge sheet. Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that the right to bail under Section 167(2) is absolute and a legislative command, not subject to judicial discretion, when the prosecution defaults in filing the charge sheet within the stipulated period. The Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative directions included the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. Five Lacs each, subject to conditions of co-operation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, and not indulging in unlawful activities or misusing liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Singh, sought bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution alleged tax evasion and recovery of unaccounted money from the petitioner's premises. The search and seizure were conducted by officers of the opposite parties. The petitioner's counsel argued that the investigation had not been completed and the charge sheet had not been filed within the stipulated period of 60 days from the arrest, which concluded on June 21, 2018. The petitioner had been in custody for over 200 days. The bail application was the second before the High Court but the first based on the default of investigation completion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on account of the investigating agency's failure to file a charge sheet within the prescribed period of 60 days from the date of arrest, considering the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which carry a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment? Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the 60-day period for investigation had expired on June 21, 2018, entitling him to bail as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. They relied on judgments from the High Court of Calcutta (Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka) and the High Court of Delhi (Raj Kumar Aggarwal), and Supreme Court pronouncements in State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Verma and Rajnikant Jivanlal & Anr. v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, emphasizing that the right to bail under Section 167(2) is absolute and a legislative command. They also argued there was no risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.