Mumbai, May 2, 2018 (CBI Special Court): The Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay, presided over by His Honour Judge Shri S.R. Tamboli (Court Room No. 47), has rejected the ‘Default Bail’ application of Mr. Vipul N. Ambani, Accused No. 2, in connection with a case registered by CBI BS & FC, Mumbai, pertaining to alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The applicant, Vipul N. Ambani, son of Natwarlal Hirachand Ambani, sought default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), arguing that the investigating agency had failed to file the charge sheet within the stipulated 60-day period from his arrest on February 20, 2018. The FIR, bearing R.C. No. 1E/2018, initially invoked sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating) of the IPC and sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Applicant’s Argument for Default Bail:

Advocate Mr. Prashant Pawar, representing the applicant, contended that since the charge sheet was not filed within 60 days of Ambani’s arrest, he was entitled to default bail as per Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. and was ready to furnish the necessary bail.

CBI’s Opposition and Invocation of Section 409 IPC:

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Mr. Mahamane, appearing for the CBI, BS & FC, opposed the application. He submitted that during the investigation, it was revealed that public servants had allegedly violated various bank guidelines while extending credit facilities to the accused firms. Based on the evidence collected, the CBI filed an application (M.A. No. 365/2018) before the court on March 13, 2018, seeking to incorporate Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the IPC into the case. This application was subsequently allowed by the court.

The SPP argued that the offence under Section 409 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and is also liable to fine. Consequently, as per Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., the court could authorize the detention of the accused for up to 90 days. In light of this, the CBI contended that the applicant was not entitled to default bail as he was now being investigated for offences punishable under sections 120-B r/w 409, 420 of IPC and section 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.

Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments:

The applicant’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (MANU/SC/0993/2017) and Rajeev Chaudhary vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi (MANU/SC/0330/2001). These judgments discussed the interpretation of “punishable with imprisonment for not less than ten years” in Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., suggesting it meant a minimum of 10 years imprisonment. The applicant argued that even if Section 409 IPC was applicable, its punishment could extend to 10 years, meaning the charge sheet should have been filed within 60 days.

Court’s Interpretation and Reliance on Rakesh Kumar Paul:

His Honour Judge Shri S.R. Tamboli, while acknowledging the cited judgments, referred to paragraph 93 of the Rakesh Kumar Paul case, which stated that Section 167(2)(a)(i) applies to offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or a minimum sentence of 10 years. Paragraph 95 of the same judgment clarified that for offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment, the 90-day period applies regardless of the minimum sentence.

The court also cited paragraph 100 of Rakesh Kumar Paul, which reiterated that for offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or a minimum of 10 years, the ‘default bail’ period is 90 days. For all other offenses where the minimum sentence is less than 10 years but the maximum is not death or life imprisonment, the period is 60 days.

Court’s Reasoning for Denying Bail:

Judge Tamboli noted that in the present case, the offence alleged against the accused (under Section 409 IPC) is punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, it could not be considered an offense punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years. Consequently, the period for filing the charge sheet was 90 days from the date of arrest, which had not yet expired. The court also found the applicant’s interpretation of the Rakesh Kumar Paul judgment unacceptable and without basis, emphasizing the need to consider the entire judgment.

The court’s view was also supported by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Manish vs. State of Gujarat (MANU/GJ/0175/2018), which similarly interpreted the Rakesh Kumar Paul case to mean that the 90-day period applies to offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or a minimum of 10 years.

The Order:

Based on the reasoning that the alleged offence under Section 409 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment, and therefore the 90-day period for filing the charge sheet was applicable and had not expired, the Special Judge (CBI) Shri S.R. Tamboli passed the following order:

Application is dismissed.

This order denies default bail to Vipul N. Ambani, upholding the CBI’s contention that the invocation of Section 409 IPC, which carries a potential life sentence, extends the period for filing the charge sheet to 90 days from the date of arrest. The case will now proceed with the ongoing investigation within this extended timeframe.