CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEFAULT BAIL – SECTION 167 CrPC – INVESTIGATION COMPLETION – WHETHER CHARGE SHEET WITHOUT FSL, CFSL, WATER ANALYSIS AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC REPORTS CONSTITUTES “INCOMPLETE CHARGE SHEET”

(A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEFAULT BAIL – SECTION 167 CrPC – INVESTIGATION COMPLETION – WHETHER CHARGE SHEET WITHOUT FSL, CFSL, WATER ANALYSIS AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC REPORTS CONSTITUTES “INCOMPLETE CHARGE SHEET”

Petitioners contend that non-filing of FSL, CFSL, water analysis reports, video forensics, call data records, super imposition report, fingerprint analysis etc., renders the charge sheet “incomplete”, and therefore the filing under Section 167 CrPC is not valid.
Held, in the part of the judgment provided, the core issue framed is:

“Whether the filing of charge sheet under Section 167 CrPC without FSL, CFSL and other scientific reports is to be considered as incomplete and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of default bail?” (Issue A, para 6)

The Court took note of petitioner’s reliance on Memo dated 06.01.2023 of the Director General of Prosecution asserting that charge sheets without forensic reports are incomplete (para 5).
(Full determination appears beyond para 70; not included in supplied text.)

(B) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – INVESTIGATION – WHETHER CHARGE SHEET CAN BE FILED WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION – DOCTRINAL POSITION

Petitioners argued that investigation is “incomplete” until all expert opinions are obtained and that filing of charge sheet without such reports is contrary to Sections 173(2), 173(8), 174 CrPC (paras 4–5).

Respondents relied on precedent that investigation is “proceeding to collect evidence” and that final report need not contain every report; additional reports may be filed under Section 173(8) CrPC without reopening investigation (paras 7–9).
Issues framed:

“Whether the charge sheet submitted by the prosecution without scientific/medical experts reports can be considered as incomplete?” (Issue C, para 6)

(Determination appears in later paras not provided.)

(C) BNSS, 2023 – SECTION 193 – RULE OF CONSTRUCTION – APPLICATION TO SECTION 173(8) CrPC – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRPC AND BNSS

Court extracted the object and reasons of BNSS (paras 20–26).
Held, while interpreting statutes consolidating procedural law, legislative purpose and social context must be considered (paras 23–26).
Particularly, reference made to statutory continuity and to repeal-and-savings context under BNSS (paras 23–26).
(Conclusion regarding applicability to the present petitions falls in paras beyond 70.)

(D) AMENDING ACTS – RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT – APPLICATION OF NEW PROCEDURAL STATUTES TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS

Court referred to Constitution Bench principles:
An amending Act is prospective unless expressly or impliedly retrospective; where procedural, it may apply to pending cases (paras 27–29).

Cited Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (para 29) and extracted five tests determining retrospectivity.
Court recorded that these principles would guide consideration of BNSS and any procedural change affecting filing of charge sheets and default bail.

(E) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – MEANING OF INVESTIGATION – COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE – WHETHER INCOMPLETE FORENSIC REPORTS INVALIDATE A CHARGE SHEET

Court extracted Section 2(h) CrPC and Supreme Court definition: investigation includes proceeding to collect evidence (para 7).
Held reliance on State of Kerala v. Babu & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1557) clarifying that police may file supplementary reports under Section 173(8) and that filing such reports does not vitiate the trial nor amount to “reopening” investigation (para 8).
Applied principle: further reports do not necessarily render the initial report “incomplete” for the purpose of Section 167 CrPC (paras 8–9).
(Full application to facts appears in later paras.)

(F) DEFAULT BAIL – JUDICIAL NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS – RIGHT ACCRUES ONLY IF INVESTIGATION NOT COMPLETED WITHIN STATUTORY PERIOD

Court noted petitioners’ reliance on Rakesh Kumar Paul, M. Ravindran, Fakhrey Alam, Parminder Singh, P. Vijayan, etc., for the proposition that:
Default bail is not merely statutory but is a species of personal liberty protected under Article 21 (paras 10–12).

Petitioners argued that any charge sheet filed without mandatory reports is not “police report” under Section 173(2), and therefore cannot defeat right under Section 167(2) (paras 10–12).
(Court’s conclusion not visible in supplied text.)

(G) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – RIGHT CONFERRED BY STATUTE IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BUT PART OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

State relied on contrasting precedent emphasising that the accused must satisfy statutory conditions, and default bail is not unconditional (para 15).
The Court noted the principle:

“No person has a fundamental right to be released on bail in all situations. Right to bail arises only when conditions prescribed by statute are met.” (para 15)

(H) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM – WHETHER BINDING ON COURT – DG PROSECUTION MEMO DT. 06.01.2023

Petitioners relied on DG Prosecution Memo directing that charge sheets without forensic reports be treated as “incomplete” (para 5).
Court framed:

“Whether Memo dated 06.01.2023 is binding upon the prosecution and is required to be strictly followed by the investigating agencies?” (Issue D, para 6)

(Conclusion appears in paras beyond 70.)

(I) SUBMISSIONS OF STATE AUTHORITIES – ROLE OF EXPERT REPORTS – INVESTIGATION PROPERLY COMPLETED EVEN IF REPORTS PENDING

Respondents argued (paras 7–9, 14–17):

• Investigation is considered complete once evidence sufficient for prosecution is collected.

• Expert reports can be filed subsequently.

• Delay in forensic laboratories cannot defeat statutory timelines.

• Charge sheet is valid so long as core investigation is completed.

Court recorded these arguments but has not yet ruled within the provided excerpt.

(J) SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN DEFAULT BAIL APPLICATION – COURT CANNOT TEST SUFFICIENCY OF MATERIAL IN CHARGE SHEET

Respondents submitted (para 17):
The Court cannot inquire whether the investigating agency has collected “sufficient” evidence; that falls within the investigator’s discretion.
Default bail cannot be granted merely because expert reports are awaited.

(K) STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXAMINED

Court extracted and analysed:

• Section 173(2) & (8) CrPC

• Section 167 CrPC

• Section 2(h) CrPC

• BNSS Statement of Objects & Reasons (paras 20–26)

• Constitutional Bench tests on retrospectivity (para 29)