Case Title: ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE v. KAPIL WADHAWAN
The Court was hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court decision which found that the day of remand had to be included in determining the 90-day or 60-day period specified in Section 167 (2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In granting bail to DHFL entrepreneurs Kapil Wadhwan and Dheeraj Wadhwan in the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case filed against them because the agency failed to produce a charge sheet within 60 days of the date of remand, the Bombay High Court made this observation.
The bench, which included Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, noted that in cases such as Ravi Prakash Singh V. State of Bihar, and M. Ravindran V. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, it was held that the date of remand hass to be excluded. In contrast, the decisions in Chaganti Satyanarayan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI vs. Anupam J Kulkarni , State vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat , State of Maharashtra vs. Bharati Chandmal Varma (2002), and Pragya Singh Thakur V. State of Maharashtra, have held that the date of remand must be included for computing the available period for investigation for determining entitlement to default bail.
It was observed that the Chaganti and Mhd. Ashraft Bhat ratios were not brought to the attention of the three-judge bench in M Ravindran, and the Court took a contrary view in declaring that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the period of investigation, to facilitate an accused's claim of default bail.
"Since the earlier position of law was not considered and the latest decision is of a 3 judges' bench, it is necessary for a bench of appropriate strength to settle the law taking note of the earlier precedents. Unless the issue is appropriately determined, the courts across the country may decide on the issue depending upon which judgment is brought to the Court's notice or on the Court's own understanding of the law, covering default bail under Section 167 (2)(a) II of CrPC", the bench observed.
As a result, the bench asked the Registry to present all necessary documents to the Chief Justice in order to form a bench of at least three judges to resolve the legal disagreement. "We believe it is necessary to send the aforementioned question to a bigger Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement to settle this difference of opinions, as this will enable the Courts to implement the law equally," it added.