IMPORTANT POINT
Default bail – Once a charge-sheet is filed within stipulated time, question of default bail does not arise. It cannot be held that additional documents cannot be produced subsequently.

ORDER

Prakash D. Naik, J.—The applicants in all these applications are seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 528 of 2019 registered with Baramati Taluka Police Station, Pune on 19th June, 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 20(b) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :-

The First Information Report (for short “FIR”) is lodged by Sachin Babanrao Patre, Police Sub Inspector, attached to Baramati Taluka Police Station, Pune Rural. On 19th June, 2019 at about 1.45 a.m. the complainant and others were discharging their duty of Nakabandi at Bhigwan Road Toll Naka. At that time they noticed Maruti Suzuki Ertiga Car proceeding from Baramati to Bhigwan. 5 persons were sitting in the car. They were stopped. The inmates of the car disclosed their names as Naveenkumar Pandu Jatu, Kishan Naik, Rakesh Lawati, Umesh Gaikwad and Anil Gaikwad. On suspecting their movements, search of car was conducted. Below the rear seat of the car 20 boxes were found lying. On opening the said boxes it was noticed that boxes were containing green leaves, sticks, seeds bearing strong smell. The police party felt that it was Ganja and hence inquiry was made with persons sitting in the car. They gave evasive answers and did not disclose any information. It was decided to initiate action under the NDPS Act. Information was given to Sub Divisional Police Officer and obtaining written permission from him. The panch witnesses, photographer were summoned at the place of incident. Personal search of the persons in the car was conducted. Inquiry was made with the said persons. They were informed about purpose of search. They were also appraised about the fact that search can be conducted in the presence of any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate which was declined by them. 20 boxes found in the car were containing the leaves, sticks, seeds having strong smell and it was confirmed that the contents of the boxes were Ganja. The contraband was seized. The weight of the contraband was 42.642 Kgm. Net weight of Ganja 41.100 Kgm. and the value was Rs.5,82,200/-. The samples were obtained and the contraband was seized and sealed. The accused were arrested on 19th June, 2019. They were remanded to custody.

3. The applicants preferred applications for bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on 5th December, 2019, on the ground that charge–sheet is filed without C.A. report. It is incomplete charge–sheet and the appellants are entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The applications were rejected by order dated 05th December, 2019.

4. The common grounds urged by the applicants in all these applications are as follows :-

(a) The applicants are entitled for bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act.

(b) The Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet before the trial Court without the report of Chemical Analyzer (for short “CA”). The accused are charged for offences under the NDPS Act. The CA report determines whether the contraband is Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Drugs. Charge-sheet filed sans CA report is incomplete charge-sheet.

(c) Field test was not conducted in the present case to determine prima facie that the contraband seized from the accused was covered under the provisions of NDPS Act.

(d) The Investigating agency filed charge–sheet without C.A. report. Since the C.A. report was not available, it was open for investigation agency to seek extension of time to complete investigation on expiry of period of 180 ays in accordance with Section 36 A (4) of N.D.P.S. Act.

(e) The Special Court under the NDPS Act has wrongly rejected the application for bail by ignoring the statutory right of the accused under the aforesaid provisions.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Nikam submitted that field test was not conducted in the present case. While filing charge-sheet there was no cogent material on record to d