JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application for bail u/s 167(2) Proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that investigation was not completed within the period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the Petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though a charge-sheet was filed on 30-1-1982 that was before the completion of investigation and the submission of the said charge-sheet not being one contemplated by Section 173(2) read with Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. He strenuously urged that though the charge-sheet was filed on 30-1-1982 and cognizance was taken, investigation had not been completed as would be evident from the statement contained in the charge-sheet itself. 3. He drew only attention to several decisions T.V. Sarma Vs. Smt. Turgakamala Devi and Others Harichand & Raj Pal v. State ILR (1977) Del 267, Suresh Singh v. The State and Ors. 1978 Cri. L.J. 58, Resham Lal Yadav and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, and Satya Narain Musadi and Others Vs. State of Bihar. The learned Standing Counsel in answer, submitted that the charge-sheet was a complete one. It contained the statements required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and statements recorded u/s 161 and all documents had been forwarded to the Magistrate along with the report as required by Sub-section (5) of Section 173 and, in fact by order dated 30-1-1982 the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate had directed preparation of copies of such documents for furnishing them to the accused. The statement in the charge-sheet was under a misconception that as the absconding accused had not been apprehended, the investigation was not complete. 4. The relevant provision may now be seen. Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines a police report as follows: (r) "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173. The relevant provisions in Section 173 are: 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation: (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. The relevant provisions in Section 173 are: 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation: (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2)(i) As soon as it is completed the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody u/s 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (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 u/s 161 of all the person whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and whereupon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2). 5. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is nothing like an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet. 5. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is nothing like an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet. Of the various reports that may be submitted by the police from time to time, the one which is submitted u/s 173(2) is called a charge-sheet and is required to be submitted after completion of investigation for taking cognizance of offence u/s 190(1)(b), Section 173(8) does not enable the investigating agency to submit an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet and later on a final charge-sheet. Section 173(2) enjoins submission of a charge-sheet after completion of investigation. Section 173(8) operates at a stage after the submission of charge-sheet (the report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173) and enables the officer-in-charge to take up further investigation and after obtaining further evidence, to forward a further report. Section 173(8) therefore provides forwarding a supplementary charge-sheet and not the one contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 173. The language of Section 173(8) is clear. Sub-section (8) has not been intended to be used as a contrivance by the officer-in-charge to bypass the requirements of Section 173(2) and make the same nugatory. 6. It is not open to the officer-in-charge to be an incomplete or preliminary charge-sheet with a view to depriving an accused of his valuable right to liberty when the investigation is not completed within the period prescribed by the proviso to Section 167(2). However, it is the substance that matters and the court has to consider if any subterfuge has been adopted to negate the right granted by Section 167(2) Proviso. If investigation has, in fact, been completed, mere description of the charge-sheet as incomplete or preliminary would not take the report out of the category of reports contemplated by Section 173(2). 7. In this case, I agree with the learned Standing Counsel that the report contains all the details required by Section 173(2)(i) and all statements and documents as required by Section 173(8) had been forwarded to the Magistrate. Absconding of some accused would not stand in the way of filing the charge-sheet. 8. As I have already noted upon submission of the charge-sheet on 30-1-1982, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate that day. It is not a case where the Magistrate has been remanding the accused from time to time on the basis of a preliminary charge-sheet without taking cognizance. 8. As I have already noted upon submission of the charge-sheet on 30-1-1982, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate that day. It is not a case where the Magistrate has been remanding the accused from time to time on the basis of a preliminary charge-sheet without taking cognizance. I may also take note of the fact that after 30-1-1982, this Petitioner filed an application for bail before this Court registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 345 of 1982. By order dated 26-2-1982 this Court rejected his prayer for bail. The Petitioner did not urge then the contentions now raised in this application. In my opinion, though there is no res judicata or estoppel in matters of bail and an accused can file successive applications the subsequent application can be founded on account of subsequent events or further materials. Such contention has been raised. 9. As I hold, agreeing with the learned Standing Counsel, that investigation, in fact, had been completed, the statement in the charge-sheet was under a misconception. The Petitioner was not entailed to bail u/s 167(2) Proviso. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly rejected. Final Result : Dismissed