J 2022 SCC OnLine Dis CRT Bom 8 Rajivmohanlawoffices Gmailcom 20230516 145946 1 15

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Printed For: Mr Abhimanyu Kampani
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 8
In the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay

(BEFORE S.H. GWALANI, J.)
Order Below Exh.07

In
Special Case No. 568 of 2022
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh … Applicant/Accused No. 1;
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation … Respondent.
Along With
Order Below Exh.09
In
Kundan Sambhaji Shinde … Applicant/Accused No. 3;
Versus
Along With
Order Below Exh.10
In
Sanjeev Suryakant Palande … Applicant/Accused No. 2;
Versus
Decided on July 11, 2022
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Aniket Nikam, Advocate for applicant/accused No. 1
Shri Shekhar Jagtap, Advocate for applicant/accused No. 2
Smt. Sudha Dwivedi, Advocate for applicant/accused No. 3
Shri Anil Singh, Additional S.G. for respondent/CBI
The Order of the Court was delivered by
S.H. GWALANI, J.:— The applicants are seeking directions for their release on
default bail in connection with RC 2232021A0003 registered with CBI, AC-V, New
Delhi i.e. Special Case No. 568 of 2022. The applicants are not on merits of the matter
but on the ground that report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(In short, Cr.P.C.) was not filed within the time stipulated provision of section 167 of
Cr.P.C. According to applicants, that gave rise to their indefeasible rights and,
therefore, they are entitled to release on default bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. It is to be noted that report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the
Special Vacation Judge/Incharge Judge, Court Room No. 52 on 02.06.2022 and
thereafter, said matter is assigned to this Court.
Brief allegations in the report are as follows:
3. That the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide order dated 5th April,
2021 in PIL No. 06 of 2021 and batch of connected PILs in the matte of Shri Param Bir
Singh v. State of Maharashtra, directed CBI to initiate a Preliminary Enquiry into the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
complaint of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil. That pursuant to the said Order, Preliminary
Enquiry vide PE2232021A001, dated 06.04.2021, was registered in CBI against Shri.
Anil Deshmukh, the then Home Minister, Government of Maharashtra and unknown
others.
4. Based upon the outcome of the said enquiry, the instant Regular Case has been
registered on 21.04.2021 against Shri. Anil Deshmukh, the then Home Minister,
Government of Maharashtra and unknown others vide RC 2232021A0003/CBI/AC-V,
New Delhi, under section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended
in 2018) r/w sections 120-B, 384 of the Penal Code, 1860.
5. The CBI on 21st April, 2021, registered an FIR against Anil Deshmukh and others
based on the allegations of corruption levelled by former Mumbai Police Commission
Param Bir Singh, who alleged that Deshmukh had instructed certain Mumbai police
officers, including Vaze to collect an amount of Rs. 100 crores every month from
Mumbai's restaurants and bars. Sachine Vaze had accordingly collected Rs. 4.70 crores
from the owners of Orchestra Bars in Mumbai between December, 2020 and February,
2021 and handed over the extorted money in two installments to Anil Deshmukh's
personal assistant Kundan Shinde.
6. In this case, CBI has named Sachin Vaze an accused and arrested him on
04.04.2022. Subsequently, dismissed Assistant Police Inspector offered to become an
approver in the case and accordingly, on 01.06.2022, learned Predecessor of this Court
granted pardon to him by his order dated 01.06.2022 passed in Miscellaneous
Application No. 714 of 2022 in Remand Application No. 353 of 2022.
7. On 02.06.2022, CBI has filed charge-sheet against applicants/accused for an
offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 120-B, 384
of the Penal Code, 1860.
Contentions of the applicants/accused in their applications are:
8. Applicants i.e. accused No. 1 Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh is lying incarcerated
since 06.04.2022, accused No. 2 Sanjeev Suryakant Palande and No. 3 Kundan
Sambhaji Shinde are lying incarcerated since 04.04.2022, when they were remanded
to custody. The charge-sheet in this matter is filed on 2nd June, 2022. The applicants
have not been provided with a copy of the charge-sheet nor they have been given an
access to the said charge-sheet. Applicants have learned from media reports that only
some 59 odd pages charge-sheet is filed in the present matter against them.
Apparently an incomplete charge-sheet is filed by Investigating Agency against the
applicants and hence they are entitled to invoke the remedy of statutory bail as
contemplated under the provisions of section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. no complaint/charge-
sheet if filed in terms of section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.
9. Applicants further contended that offences alleged against them are not
punishable for a term not less than Ten years, Death, Life Imprisonment. Therefore,
they are entitled for statutory bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. as the investigation
is not completed within 60 days of their remand. It is further contended that Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C. obligates the Investigation Agencies to complete the investigation in
a time bound manner. The investigation is said to be completed if sufficient material is
collected by the Investigating Officer based on which cognizance can be taken under
section 167 of CrPC. But, an incomplete charge-sheet filed without completing the
investigation cannot be used to defeat the right of statutory bail under section 167(2)
of Cr.P.C.
10. Applicants further contended that the charge-sheet filed by Respondent on
02.06.2022 is an incomplete charge-sheet. By mere filing a compilation of 59 pages
termed as a charge-sheet without completing the entire investigation and without
filing a final and full-fledged charge-sheet as understood under Section 173 of CrPC,
the prosecuting agency cannot subjugate the indefeasible statutory right of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
applicants to claim for default bail.

11. Applicants further contended that applicant No. 1 was arrested on 06.04.2022
and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested on 04.04.2022. Charge-sheet filed by the
Respondent on 02.06.2022. On 02.06.2022 as well as on 04.06.2022, period of 60
days expires from the date from their first remand. It is further contended that Section
167(2) of Cr.P.C. obligates the Investigation Agencies to complete the investigation in
a time bound manner.
Contentions of CBI/Prosecution:
12. CBI by filing their replies vide Exhs.7-A, 9-A and 10-A have strongly opposed
the applications by contended that the Police Report as contemplated under section
173(2) of Cr.P.C. after completing investigation as set out in the charge-sheet has
been filed by the CBI before this Court on 02.06.2022. This fact is borne out by
Roznama dated 02.06.2022. Therefore, it cannot be said that an incomplete report has
been filed. The right of accused to receive copy of the police report and connected
documents accrues at the stage of section 207 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accused do no
have the right to claim the copy of the charge at this stage. In any case the supply of
the final report to accused under section 207 of CrPC has not nexus with section 167
(2) of Cr.P.C. for default bail.
13. CBI has denied the contentions of applicants made in their applications. It is
further contended that once a charge-sheet has been filed, the right of the accused to
claim the benefit under section 167(2) of CrPC ceases. Therefore, the contention of the
applicants/accused that since the documents accompanying the charge-sheet were not
deposited in the Court on 02.06.2022, it cannot be termed as a complete charge-
sheet, is completely misplaced and against the tenets of criminal jurisprudence. Such
misplaced understanding cannot be used/utilized to seek the benefit of default bail
under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. despite filing of the police report before the period
prescribed in law. Accordingly, prayed for rejection of applications of the applicants.
14. Heard Shri. Aniket Nikam, learned advocate for applicant/accused No. 1, Shri.
Shekhar Jagtap, learned advocate for applicant/accused No. 2, Smt. Sudha Dwivedi,
learned advocate for applicant/accused No. 3 and Shri. Anil Singh, learned Additional
Solicitor General for respondent/CBI.
Submissions on behalf of applicants/accused:
15. Shri. Anikent Nikam, learned advocate for accused No. 1, Shri. Shekhar Jagtap,
learned advocate for accused No. 2, Smt. Dwivedi, learned advocate for accused No. 3
have emphatically submitted that report purportedly filed on 02.06.2022, was not
complete report as contemplated under section 173(2) r/w 173(5) of Cr.P.C.
16. Learned advocate for applicant/accused No. 1 submitted that in view of FIR,
there were three allegations. However, incomplete charge-sheet has been filed
pertaining to one allegation only. Shri. Aniket Nikam further submitted that Para No.
18 (aj), page No. 35 of the report itself suggest that investigation was not completed
pertaining to two allegations, investigation is yet to be started.
17. Learned advocate for respective accused further submitted that keeping
administrative delay aside, admittedly on 02.06.2022, except 59 pages, none of the
documents, recorded and/or statements were filed in the Sessions Court Registry.
Mere filing of the charge-sheet within prescribed period time, unaccompanied by
material papers as contemplated under section 173(5) of CrPC renders it incomplete
and such filing of charge-sheet amounts to failure to file the same, which in turn
confers on the accused right to be released on bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
18. Learned advocate for applicant/accused No. 1 in support of his submission has
relied on following case laws.
i. Dheeraj Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom
9461, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Not filing documents and statements of witnesses along with the report
does not make that report an incomplete report. Since the requisite report
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed within time, the right to seek default
bail never accrued in favor of the applicant.”
ii. Punjaram v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1595 wherein the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that:
Filing of report under Section 173(2) in the pro forma as prescribed by the
statute without there being any accompaniments or the investigation papers
indicating completion of investigation would entitle an accused to claim his
indefeasible right conferred under Section 167(2).
iii. Smt. Kalpana Ghose v. State, 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 428 wherein the Hon'ble
Calcutta High Court observed that:
“A Police Report under Section 173(2), unaccompanied by the documents
under Section 173(5) of the Code, cannot be said to be a Police Report in the
eye of law, being an incomplete Report. A Magistrate would be incompetent to
take cognizance of an offence on such a Police Report as he would not be in a
position to look to the documents, which are required to be accompanied by it,
for the purpose of taking cognizance.”
iv. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
“The House of Lords observed that ‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’.
In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have
developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ‘quotable
in law’ is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or
other binding authority. The same has been accepted, approved and adopted
by this court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies
the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law.”
v. Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to
reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a Co-equal
or Larger Bench;
vi. State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer alias Kalika Singh, (2003) 5 SCC 448 wherein the
An earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court although
appearing to be incorrect on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter
was not considered by, or raised before, that Bench, held, cannot merely for
that reasons be said to be rendered per incuriam. It is binding on a later
coordinate Bench. The later coordinate Bench must either follow it or refer the
matter to a larger Bench.
vii. Kanwar Amninder Singh v. High Court of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt
1026 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital held that:
“It must be borne in mind that a decision is only an authority for what it
actually decides, and not every observation found therein nor what logically
follows from the various observations made in it. Every judgment must be
read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved,
since the generality of the expressions, which may be found therein, are not
intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by
the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.”
viii. Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra, (1989) 3 SCC 396
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our system of judicial review which is a part of our constitutional

scheme, we hold it to be the duty of Judges of superior Courts and tribunals to
make the law more predictable. The question of law directly arising in the case
should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The law must be made more
effective as a guide to behaviour. It must be determined with reasons which
carry convictions within the Courts, professions and public. Otherwise, the
lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their
clients. Subordinate Courts would find themselves in an embarrassing position
to choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be in a
dilem ma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately fails into disrepute.
ix. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655.
x. P.V. Vijayaraghavan v. CBI, 1984 SCC OnLine Ker 95, wherein the Hon'ble Kerala
High Court held that:
“A final report or charge-sheet under S.173 could be filed only after
completion of the investigation in the case relating to all the offences arising
in the case.”
xi. K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that:
From Section 173 CrPC it is evident that even after submission of police
report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a
right of ‘further’ investigation under sub-section (8) but not “fresh
investigation’ or ‘reinvestigation’. The dictionary meaning of ‘further’ (when
used as an adjective) is ‘additional’; more; supplemental. ‘Further’
investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a
fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab-initio wiping out the
earlier investigation altogether.
xii. Hargovind Bhargava v. State of M.P., ILR 2016 MP 1843 wherein the Hon'ble
High Court held that:
It is not permissible for the Investigating Officer to keep the investigation
pending for some accused and to file charge-sheet against the arrested
accused to defeat the provisions of section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. so that bail
should not be granted to the arrested accused due to incomplete
investigation.
It is further held that,
Investigation Agency is empowered under Section 173(8) of CrPC to further
investigate the matter after filing of charge-sheet but not to re-investigate or
re-open the matter.
19. Learned advocate for applicant/accused No. 2 in support of his submission has
relied on following case laws:
a. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 SCC OnLine Bom
81 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that,
“Magistrate cannot take cognizance on an “Incomplete charge-sheet”
forwarded by the police.”
b. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court have considered the case of Disproportionate Assets under the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1947. Various effects of the cases were considered in this
judgment. One of the contention raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court was,
whether it was incumbent on the Investigating Officer to call for explanation
from accused in such case.
In para No. 75, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that,
After collection of all material, the Investigating officer must give an
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account for the excess of the
assets over the known sources of income and then decide whether the
accounting is satisfactory or not, would be elevating him to the position of an
enquiry officer or a judge. Investigating Officer is not holding an enquiry
against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues
regarding the disproportionality between the assets and the income of the
accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a report which
he files in the Court as a charge-sheet.
It is also held that,
The report/charge-sheet is complete if it is accompanied with all the
documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 172(5) of the
Code.
c. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that:—
“The right to get ‘default bail’ is a very important right. Ours is a country
where millions of our countrymen are totally illiterate and not aware of their
rights. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra)
has held that the accused must apply for grant of ‘default bail’. As far as
Section 167 of the Code is concerned, Explanation I to Section 167 provides
that notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified (i.e. 60 days or 90
days, as the case may be), the accused can be detained in custody so long as
he does not furnish bail. Explanation I to Section 167 of the Code reads as
follows:
“Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that,
notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the
accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.”
The accused does not have to make out any grounds for grant of bail. He
does not have to file a detailed application. All he has to aver in the
application is that since 60/90 days have expired and charge-sheet has not
been filed, he is entitled to bail and is willing to furnish bail. This
indefeasible right cannot be defeated by filing the charge-sheet after the
accused has offered to furnish bail.”
d. Achpal alias Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599.
In this case, the report was filed by the police officer lower in rank than an
Additional Superintendent of Police. That was not in accordance with the
directions mentioned in the Hon'ble High Court order in that case and, therefore,
the papers were returned by the Magistrate before expiry of 90th day of
detention. Thus, on expiry of 90th day, no report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was
on record with the Magistrate. Immediately after expiry of 90 days, the accused
filed application for bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. In those circumstances,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the accused.
e. Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 153,
decided on 13th February, 2002 by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein it is
held that:
Charge-sheet for offences under N.D.P.S. Act against applicants therein
without Chemical Analyser's report is incomplete. Such incomplete charge-
sheet cannot be said to be charge-sheet contemplated under section 173(5)
so as to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence.
f. Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI, (2015) 3 SCC 417.
In the cited case, the accused was arrested on 04.04.2013 for an offense
punishable with life imprisonment or death. The police report was filed on
04.07.2013. However, the police report was not accompanied by documents as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contemplated by Section 173(5), which documents were filed only on

08.07.2013. Relying on K. Veeraswami v. UOI, (1991) 3 SCC 655, (para 76) and
urging that the police report was incomplete, the accused, on 04.07.2013 itself
applied for default bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that “filing of police report
containing the particulars as mentioned under Section 173(2) amounted to
completion of filing of the report before the learned ACJM, cognizance is taken
and registered the same. The contention of the appellant that the police report
filed in this case is not as per the legal requirement under Section 173(2) & (5)
of Cr.P.C. which entitled him for default bail is rightly rejected by the High Court
and does not call for any interference by this Court.”
g. Manas Krishna T.K. v. State, the Police Inspector/Officer In Charge, 2021 SCC
OnLine Bom 1015.
In the cited case, the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa
on dated 7th July 2021, noted the decision in the case of Sagar Parshuram Joshi
v. State of Maharashtra and Aleksander Kurganov v. State of Goa, and referred
the issue to Larger Bench. It is submitted that, the decision in the case of Dinesh
Dalmia v. CBI was not relating to offence under NDPS Act wherein C.A. report is
vital document.
h. Baikuntha Sutara v. State of Orissa, 1989 SCC OnLine Ori 283 wherein the
Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that,
“Although the charge-sheet has been designated as “preliminary charge-
sheet”, it is substantially a regular charge-sheet within the meaning of Section
173(2) and (5) of the Code. In the said case Expert opinion about the drugs
and life saving medicines seized in the case had not been obtained.
Otherwise, the entire police case diary, statements and documents have been
furnished to the Court showing as if the entire investigation was complete by
the time the charge-sheet was submitted.”
In the cited case, regular bail was granted to accused on the count that the
material part of the investigation having been over therefore, their further
detention is no longer necessary.
i. C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1075 wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad observed that:
“Mere filing preliminary charge-sheet without completing the investigation
will not defeat the indefeasible statutory right of the accused to claim for
default bail.”
j. Aleksander Kurganov v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 150 wherein the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court at Goa in the context of NDPS Cases noted the conflicting set
of decisions on the issue of whether a charge sheet can be said to be incomplete
merely because the CA/FSL report was not filed along with it within the period
stipulated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. After noting this conflict the Hon'ble
High Court further noted that, Faced with a decisional conflict, the principles of
precedent do not allow him to choose one over the other and that this issue must
be resolved by a bench of superior numeric strength. However, the Hon'ble High
Court at para 66 held that the necessity of a reference to a Division Bench is
obviated on account of the ratio in Dinesh Dalmia case. The Hon'ble High Court
has observed that Dinesh Dalmia case is an authority for the proposition that a
mere absence of a forensic report neither renders the charge sheet as incomplete
nor vitiates such a charge sheet.
k. Matchumari China Venkatareddy v. State of A.P. rep. by its P.P., 1993 SCC
OnLine AP 567 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
held that:
Until a charge-sheet with all specifications enumerated under Section 173
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Cr.P.C. and accompaniments under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. is filed into the
court and the court scrutinizes it on its administrative side to satisfy that all
such documents are in order and unless the court takes it on record and keeps
it on its file for examination for taking cognizance or not, it cannot be said that
a police report (charge-sheet) is filed as contemplated under section 173(2)
Cr.P.C.
l. Alam Khan Umar Khan Jathmalek v. State of Gujrat, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 1557.
20. In the cited case, applicants were facing charges for offence punishable under
section 302 of the IPC. However, charge-sheet has been filed beyond period of 90
days. Therefore, Hon'ble High Court held that, accused is entitled to be offered bail as
a matter of right under the provision of section 167(2) of CrPC.
21. Learned advocate for applicants/accused also relied on many other judgments
to elaborate what can be termed as a complete report.
22. Learned advocate for respective applicants/accused further made submissions
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of Narendra
Kumar Amin v. Central Bureau of Investigation considered K. Veeraswami's case
(supra), but, Narendra Kumar Amin's case (supra) is not binding as it is in direct
conflict with the ratio of K. Veeraswami's case (supra), which is a Constitution Bench
judgment.
23. According to learned advocate there was direct conflict between K.
Veeraswami's judgment (supra) and Narendra Kumar Amin's judgment (supra) and
therefore, K. Veeraswami's judgment (supra), being a Constitution Bench judgment
must prevail. In support of this submission, many judgments were relied on.
24. The submissions of learned advocate appearing for respective applicants are
similar.
Submission of learned ASG for Respondent/CBI:
25. Shri. Anil Singh, Learned ASG for CBI opposed these applications. He submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Amin's case has concluded the
issue and this Court cannot go beyond the interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Narendra Kumar Amin's case. He submitted that there was no conflict between K.
Veeraswami's judgment and Narendra Kumar Amin's judgment. He submitted that all
the required ingredients of the report as defined under Section 2(r) read with Section
173(2) of Cr.P.C. are elaborately mentioned in the report filed before the Court. The
report is filed in time and hence the Applicants right for default bail never arose.
26. Learned ASG further submitted that a police report under Section 173(2) of
Cr.PC is only an opinion of IO that insofar as he is concerned, the investigation is
complete in all respects. The requirement of forwarding documents and statements in
terms of Section 173(5) is only directory and therefore, even if no CA/FSL report is
forwarded to the Special Court along with the police report, neither the police report
nor the investigation be said to be incomplete. He submitted that the limitation
prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is only for filing the charge-sheet and not
for taking cognizance of the offense. He submitted that once a charge-sheet complying
with the provisions of Section 173(2) of Cr.PC is filed within the period prescribed, no
question of any default bail arises.
27. Learned ASG relied on the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community
v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673 to contend that the ruling making specific
reference to an earlier binding precedent may or may not be correct but cannot be said
to be per incuriam. He, therefore, submitted that no case is made out by the
Applicants for grant of any relief in these Applications.
28. Learned ASG further submitted that as per allegations in FIR in para 17,
allegations against accused persons can be classified in three board categories viz;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The accused attempted to obtain undue advantage of his official position by

directing the police officials to collect funds from certain sources.
2) The accused allegedly interfered with the course of investigation into certain
cases and influenced the investigation.
3) The accused allegedly exercised undue influence over the transfer and posting of
police officials with a view to further exercise undue influence over the
performance of public duties by those police officials.
29. He further submitted that in the instant case, regarding allegation No. 1,
prosecution has filed the charge-sheet and regarding allegation Nos. 2 and 3,
prosecution has mentioned in the charge-sheet that further investigation under section
173(8) of CrPC is in progress vis-a-vis allegation as mentioned in para 17 sub para 2
and 3 and other related and connected issues. Therefore, applicants/accused are not
entitled for default bail.
30. Learned ASG also submitted that it is not requirement of law that report
mentioned under section 173 to CrPC is complete only when it is accompanied with
other document and statement of witnesses when report is filed.
31. In support of the submission, learned ASG relied on following case laws:
I. Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigating, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom
11655, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that:
“Not filing of the documents and statements of witnesses along with the
report does not make that report an incomplete report. Since requisite report
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed within time, the right to seek default
bail never accrued in favour of the Applicants.”
II. Narendra Kumar Amin v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 3 SCC 417,
“Non-filing of full set of documents with police report/charge-sheet within
statutory period, held, does not entitle accused to default bail so long as
report is in complete with Section 173(2)- 173(5) is directory.”
III. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai, (2002) 5 SCC 82 wherein the
“Additional evidence gathered during investigation can be produced by
police officer even after submission of charge-sheet. Word ‘shall’ used in sub-
section (5) for requiring the Police Officer to forward to the Magistrate “all
documents” is directory and not mandatory.”
IV. Manas Krishna T.K. v. State, the Police Inspector/Officer in Charge, 2021 SCC
OnLine Bom 2955 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in para 42
observed as under:
42. Therefore, on the analysis of the statutory provisions, as also the
decisions that have analyzed various shades of such statutory provisions, we
believe that a police report or a charge sheet containing the details specified
in Section 173(2), if filed within the period prescribed under Section 167(2) is
not vitiated or incomplete simply because the same was not accompanied by a
CA/FSL report and, based thereon, there is no question of the accused
insisting on default bail.
V. Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1192.
In the cited case, the petitioner who is the former Home Minister of the
State of Maharashtra, has preferred the petition under section 226 of the
Constituion of India and Section 482 of the CrPC for a writ, direction or order
to quash and/or set aside First Information Report (FIR) registered by CBI
and all the consequent proceedings initiated pursuant to the said FIR. The
Hon'ble Bombay High Court classified the allegations against
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
accused/petitioner in three board categories as per FIR and dismissed the writ
petition.
VI. M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021)
2 SCC 485 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
If an accused person fails to exercise his right to be released on bail for the
failure of the prosecution to file the charge-sheet within the maximum time
allowed by law, he cannot contend that he had an indefeasible right to
exercise it at any time notwithstanding the fact that in the meantime the
charge-sheet is filed. But on the other hand if he exercises the right within the
time allowed by law and is released on bail under such circumstances, he
cannot be rearrested on the mere filing of the charge-sheet.
32. I have gone through all aforesaid authorities. I have given my anxious
consideration to the submissions made by learned advocate for respective
applicants/accused and learned ASG for respondent/CBI.
33. Before referring to the facts of this case, it is necessary to refer to the
judgments cited by the learned advocate for the Applicants/accused regarding nature
of right in favour of the accused under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
34. In the case of Manas Krishna T.K. v. State, the Police Inspector/Officer In
Charge, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2955, decided on 13th September, 2021, the Hon'ble
Division Bench, High Court of Bombay at Goa, have observed in para Nos. 55 & 58 as
under:
55. Thus, it is clear that Phulbande (supra) was based almost entirely on the
decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Matchumari (supra) even though, the said decision, had already been overruled by
the Division Bench of the same High Court in Vellinedipuram (supra). Secondly,
Phulbande (supra) was based on the decision of the learned Single Judge of our
Court in Sharadchandra Dongre (supra) which had already been reversed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Dongre (supra).
Thirdly, Phulbande (supra) did not notice a prior but contrary view taken by the
learned Single Judge of our Court in Suwarnkar (supra). Fourthly, Phulbande
(supra) failed to notice that the prior and contrary view in Suwarnkar (supra) had
been expressly approved by the Division Bench of our Court in Rohini Godse
(supra). Fifthly, Phulbande (supra) is inconsistent with or irreconcilable with several
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to us, all these are sufficient
reasons to hold that Phulbande (supra) was decided per incuriam.
58. Since Phulbande (supra) was relied upon and/or followed in Punjaram
(supra), Sagar Joshi (supra), Manik Chowgule (supra), Ranjit Machrekar (supra),
and Seema Panchariya (supra), even these decisions, will have to be held as per
incuriam. These decisions are also not reconcilable with the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Dongre (supra) and the
decision of the learned Single Judge of our Court in Suwarnkar (supra) as approved
by the Division Bench of our Court in Rohini Godse (supra). Suwarnkar (supra) inter
alia relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi
Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821.
The Hon'ble High Court also held that:
“a mere absence of a forensic report neither renders the charge sheet as
incomplete nor vitiates such a charge sheet.”
35. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in further para Nos. 66
and 67 have held as under:
66. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the presentation of a police report
under Section 173(2) unaccompanied by a CA/FSL report does not amount to any
incomplete police report or any incomplete charge sheet/challan even in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
absence of an extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. Based
thereon therefore the accused cannot insist upon a default bail.
67. Similarly, we hold that a police report under Section 173(2) or a charge
sheet/challan accompanied by field testing reports as reflected in the Panchanama
or otherwise also cannot be labeled as an incomplete police report/charge
sheet/challan simply because the same was not accompanied by a CA/FSL report.
The rival contentions now fall for my determination.
36. Precedents apart, even based upon the statutory scheme in Sections 2(h), 2(r),
167, 169, 170, 173, 190, and 309 of Cr.PC, the contention that report was not
accompanied by the statements of the witnesses and other documents. Therefore, it
was incomplete report. In short, report did not satisfy the requirement of section 173
(2) as well as 173(5) of CrPC and if does not, then it would not be proper to
compliance of section 173 of CrPC. Consequently, indefeasible right of the
applicants/accused for getting release on bail arise immediately.
37. Section 2(r) Cr.P.C. defines “police report” to mean a report forwarded by a
police officer to the Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Significantly, Section 2(r)
Cr.P.C. refers only to Section 173(2) and not to Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. Even Section
190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which is concerned with the Magistrate taking cognizance of the
offense also refers only to a police report as defined under Section 2(r) Cr.P.C. and not
to any documents or statements as contemplated by Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. that may
accompany such police report.
Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
“(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the
police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes
to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements-recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.”
38. The expression “such report” used in Section 173(5) Cr.PC refers to the police
report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr. PC. Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. then provides that in
respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the
Magistrate “along with the report” the documents and statements referred to in sub-
clauses (a) and (b). This means that the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is clauses
(a) and (b). This means that the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is different and
distinct from the documents and statements contemplated by Section 173(5) Cr.P.C.
though, there is a directory requirement that such documents and statements are
required to be forwarded to the Magistrate along with the police report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C.
39. The police report containing all the details prescribed in section 173(2) is
complete in terms of the statutory scheme. Therefore, merely because the documents
or statements as contemplated by Section 173(5) may not have been forwarded by
the police along with the complete police report under Section 173(2), such police
report, will not be an incomplete police report and entitle the accused a default bail
under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
40. Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is pivot of all arguments in these applications. Sub-
section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is very important. The Magistrate gets power to
remand the accused during pendency of the investigation only upto the outer limit
mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. If during that
period the investigation is not completed and the report is not filed, the indefeasible
right mentioned in all the above judgments accrues in favour of the accused. But, if
such report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is filed before such right is exercised, then
the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence upon such police report by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
exercising his powers under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.; and can remand the accused to
further custody under other provisions of Cr.P.C. as mentioned hereinafter. The
accused can also be detained in custody under this Section if he does not furnish bail
as specified in Explanation I of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
41. The next provision enabling the Magistrate to grant remand is under sub-
clauses (a) & (b) of Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the next provision is under
Section 309 of Cr.P.C. which enables the Court to remand the accused in custody.
Thus, there is a common thread running through these provisions which enables the
appropriate Courts to remand the accused to custody. This chain is broken if the report
is not filed within the stipulated period under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
42. These situations are noted and explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the
case of Suresh Kumar Bhikam Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 3 SCC 77, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“A charge-sheet containing the details specified in Section 173(2) had been filed
within the time prescribed under Section 167(2). However, no copy of the sanction
order was produced along with such a charge-sheet. The accused contended that in
the absence of a sanction order, the Magistrate had no authority to take cognizance
of the offence or to pass any further remand orders under Section 309 and therefore
the accused was entitled to default bail under section 167(2). This contention was
however negatived holding that a police report or a charge-sheet containing details
specified in section 173(2) had been filed within the period stipulated under section
167(2) and the issue of cognizance was to be addressed later. The police report was
complete even though the sanction order was not accompanying it, and therefore,
the accused was not entitled to default bail.”
43. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered its several earlier rulings
and held that, “None of such rulings detract from the position that once a charge sheet
is filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of default bail does not arise.
The filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 167(2)
(a)(ii) and whether cognizance is taken or not, is not material as far as section 167 of
CrPC is concerned.”
44. In Tara Singh v. The State, 1951 SCC 903 : AIR 1951 SC 441, the police filed
their challan (police report or charge sheet) on 03.10.1949 which was the last date as
stipulated under Section 167(2). The report of the imperial serologist and drawing of
the sketch map of the occurrence was however produced by filing a second challan on
05.10.1949 i.e. beyond the period stipulated in Section 167(2). Based on this, the
accused contended that he was entitled to default bail because the challan filed on
03.10.1949 was an incomplete challan or that the first challan filed on 03.10.1949
stood vitiated on account of the filing of the second challan on 05.10.1949. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the aforesaid contention of the accused. The Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the challan filed on 03.10.1949 was a complete challan, even
though the report of the imperial serologist or the drawing of the sketch map of the
occurrence did not accompany the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that all that
Section 173(1)(a) requires is that as soon as the police investigation under Chapter
XIV is complete there should be a report forwarded to the Magistrate in the prescribed
form setting forth names of parties, nature of information, and names of persons who
appear to be acquainted with circumstances of the case. Since all this appears to have
been done in the report of 02.10.1949, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that, “It was in
fact a complete report as contemplated under Section 173(1) of the Code even
though the police had themselves referred to it as an incomplete report.”
45. The Hon'ble Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of
Haryana v. Mehal Singh, AIR 1978 P&H 341, on a detailed consideration of statutory
provisions and precedents on the subject, has held as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…………… Since a report to qualify itself to be a ‘police report’ is required to

contain only such facts as are mentioned in 173(2), so if once it is found that the
police report contained all those facts, then so far as the ‘investigation’ is concerned
the same has to be considered to have been completed”. …………… Even if the
investigating officer had not received the report of the expert, so far as his job of
collecting of evidence is concerned, that is over the moment he despatches the
material for the opinion of the expert and incidentally cites him as a witness if he
relies on his testimony.”
46. In Narendra Kumar Amin (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated the
information that must be detailed in the police report forwarded to the Magistrate by
investigating officer as provided under Section 173(2). Even Section 190(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. refers only to a police report under Section 173(2) for taking cognizance. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred Hon'ble Three Judge Bench Judgment in C.B.I. v. R.S.
Pai (Supra), wherein it is held that, “omission in not producing relevant documents at
the time of submitting the police report can always be made good by the police officer
after seeking leave to produce the same. If further investigation is not precluded
under Section 173(8), then, there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to
produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the
investigation and the word shall used in Section 173(5) cannot be regarded as
mandatory, but, is only directory.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court analysed statutory
scheme and concluded that as long as a police report containing the details in Section
173(2) was filed within the period stipulated in Section 167(2), there was no question
of an accused claiming a default bail. This decision is a authority for the proposition
that there is a distinction between a police report under Section 173(2) and
documents and statements under Section 173(5) to ordinarily accompany such a
police report and that the provisions of Section 173(5) about forwarding of documents
and statements along with police report, is only directory and not mandatory. As long
as a police report containing the details prescribed in Section 173(2) is filed within
period stipulated in Section 167(2) such police report cannot be regarded as
incomplete or deficit merely because all the documents or statements in terms of
Section 173(5) were not filed along with such a police report. No question of default
bail would arise in such a case.
47. The submission of learned advocate for applicants/accused that decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Amin (Supra) holding that the
provisions of Section 173(5) are directory is per incuriam on the ground that it
conflicts court ratio in constitution bench decision in K. Veeraswami (Supra) and that
decisions of R.S. Pai (Supra) were decided under old Cr.P.C., is already rejected by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in the case of Manas Krishna
T.K. (supra), Dheeraj Wadhawan (Supra) as well as Narendra Kumar Amin (supra)
holding that, the contention that Narendra Kumar Amin (Supra) conflicts with the ratio
of constitution Bench ruling in paragraph 76 of K. Veeraswami (Supra) was squarely
raised in Narendra Kumar Amin itself, but, the same was turned down. In paragraph
15 of Narendra Kumar Amin (Supra), it was observed that, the observations made at
paragraph 76 of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of K. Veeraswamy
(Supra) that the report is incomplete if it is accompanied by all documents and
statements of witnesses as required under Section 173(5) of Cr.P.C. cannot be
construed as statement of law, since it was not made in the context of the police
report under Section 2(r) read with Section 173(2)(5) and (8) of Cr.P.C. On the
contrary, the Hon'ble Three Judge Bench in the decision in C.B.I. v. R.S. Pai (Supra)
after referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in Narayan
Rao's case, AIR 1957 SC 737, categorically held that, the word ‘shall’, used in Sub-
section (5) cannot be interpreted mandatory, but, directory. Therefore, filing of the
report containing particulars mentioned under Section 173(2) amounted to completion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of filing of report. The Hon'ble Reference Bench then observed that, Narendra Kumar
Amin (Supra) makes specific reference to K. Veeraswami (Supra) will be binding on
this Court and decision of Narendra Kumar Amin (Supra) cannot be held to be per
incuriam.
48. It is to be noted that in the light of above discussion the judgment in the case
of Narendra Kumar Amin (Supra) is already considered in Constitution Bench
Judgment in K. Veeraswami's case. However, while dealing with final issue in present
case, the judgments referred on behalf of applicants/accused are dealt with and those
are distinguishable from the facts of present case. So the case laws cited on behalf of
the applicants/accused are no avail to the applicants/accused.
49. Admittedly, both sides have presented diametrically opposite views before me
in regard to the question whether the documents and statements recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. must form part of the police report mentioned under Section
173(2) and if they are not tendered along with the report then whether such report
could be termed as a complete report. The submission of the Applicants is that filing of
such an incomplete report without documents and statements does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the Applicants are entitled to be
released on bail.
50. On the other hand, learned ASG has submitted that it is not a requirement of
law, that, the report mentioned under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. is complete only when
it is accompanied with other documents and statements of witnesses when the report
is filed.
51. The summary of this discussion is that Narendra Kumar Amin's case (supra)
holds the field in this regard. As held by that judgment, if the report filed before the
Court satisfies all the requirements of Section 173(2) then it is sufficient compliance of
filing a report. It is not absolutely necessary to file all the documents and the
statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. for the purposes of
filing of the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. within the stipulated period
specified under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
52. Admittedly, on 02.06.2022, Report/Charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI
before the Vacation Judge of CBI Court. In the said report, List of witnesses
(Annexure A) and list of documents (Annexure B) has been filed. Thereafter,
Vacation Judge granted time to Investigating Officer, CBI to submit the documents on
or before 07.06.2020. Thereafter, on 08.06.2022, Registrar, Sessions Department, has
submitted the report before this Court wherein it is mentioned that, “on 07.06.2022,
at 10.30 a.m. documents and statements of witnesses with fresh list were
submitted by IO in Sessions Department.”
53. It is to be noted that on 07.06.2022, no application for bail has been filed by
accused persons. However, on 07.06.2022, in Second Sessions, accused No. 2 made
oral submission regarding filing of the application for default bail. Thereafter, all
accused persons have filed the applications for default bail on 08.06.2022.
54. Admittedly, in the present case, the report filed on 02.06.2022, mentions the
names of the parties, nature of information, names of the persons who appeared to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case as mentioned in the index, the offence
which appears to have been committed by each of the accused, whether the accused
have been arrested, whether they were released on bail etc. All the necessary
information mentioned in Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. is given in the report which is filed
before the Court. It, therefore, does not matter that trunk of documents were
subsequently filed in the Registry of the Court.
55. The case laws relied on by the CBI of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High
Court, are squarely applicable to the facts of present case.
56. Based on the above discussion and legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court, followings are my conclusion:

i. Further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.PC cannot be made a
reason to say that the charge sheet filed against the accused persons can be
incomplete so as to entitle the applicants/accused to grant of
compulsive/statutory/default bail.
ii. Right to default bail for non-filing the police report within the stipulated period
provided under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right which flows from
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
iii. Such indefeasible right cannot be defeated by any subterfuge. The Courts cannot
be too technical while entertaining application for bail for not filing the police
report within the stipulated period under Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
iv. The report filed on 02.06.2022 by the investigating agency before the Vacation
Judge for CBI at Greater Mumbai complied with all the requirements of law and
hence was a proper report, filed within the period specified under Section 167 of
Cr.P.C.
v. Not filing of the documents and statements of witnesses along with the report on
02.06.2022 does not make that report an incomplete report.
vi. Since requisite report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed within time, the
right to seek default bail never accrued in favour of the Applicants.
57. Thus, in view of above discussion, non accompanying the documents and
statement of witnesses along with charge-sheet which was filed on 02.06.2022 did not
in any way is incomplete charge-sheet for the purpose of consideration of default bail.
Accordingly, no grounds are made out for grant default bail to applicants/accused. In
view of the above discussion and conclusions, the reliefs claimed in the applications
cannot be granted. Hence, I have no option to pass following order:
ORDER
58. Applications at Exh.7, Exh.9 and Exh.10, for default bail are rejected, and stand
disposed of accordingly.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 2022 SCC OnLine Dis CRT Bom 8 Rajivmohanlawoffices Gmailcom 20230516 145946 1 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 2022 SCC OnLine Dis CRT Bom 8 Rajivmohanlawoffices Gmailcom 20230516 145946 1 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, May 16, 2023

2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 8

In the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay

Order Below Exh.07

applicants to claim for default bail.

In our system of judicial review which is a part of our constitutional

contemplated by Section 173(5), which documents were filed only on

1) The accused attempted to obtain undue advantage of his official position by

“…………… Since a report to qualify itself to be a ‘police report’ is required to

Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court, followings are my conclusion:

You might also like