Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SUJIT BARMAN ROY, RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
ANWAR ALIAS ANSWAR ALIAS ANWAR REHMAN - Respondent
C. R. A. N. 1015 Of 1997
Decided On : 01/04/2000
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 173(2), 190(1)(B), 2(R) - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 21, 20(B)(II), 37 - BAIL - CANCELLATION OF BAIL - CHARGESHEET - FILING OF - DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS - SUPPLY OF - COGNIZANCE - TAKING OF - VALIDITY OF - REVIEW OF ORDER GRANTING BAIL - LEGALITY OF - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The accused/petitioner was arrested on charges of possession of heroin and other drugs. A chargesheet was filed against him within 90 days of his custody, but the police allegedly failed to forward the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) along with the chargesheet. The accused filed an application for bail, which was rejected by the trial court. He then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which granted him bail on the ground that the chargesheet was incomplete. The State filed a review petition against the order granting bail.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the cognizance taken by the trial court on the basis of the chargesheet was valid, even though the police had allegedly failed to forward the documents and statements of witnesses along with the chargesheet. The Court held that the definition of "police report" in Section 2(r) of the CrPC does not include the statements of witnesses or other documents referred to in Section 173(5) of the CrPC, and that the police are not required to forward these documents along with the chargesheet. The Court also held that the order granting bail to the accused was illegal, as the restrictions against granting bail to an accused under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were applicable to the accused in this case.
Issues: 1. Whether the cognizance taken by the trial court on the basis of the chargesheet was valid, even though the police had allegedly failed to forward the documents and statements of witnesses along with the chargesheet? 2. Whether the order granting bail to the accused was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "police report" in Section 2(r) of the CrPC does not include the statements of witnesses or other documents referred to in Section 173(5) of the CrPC, and the police are not required to forward these documents along with the chargesheet. 2. The restrictions against granting bail to an accused under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable to the accused in this case, and therefore the order granting bail to him was illegal.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the accused's revision petition and allowed the State's review petition. The order granting bail to the accused was recalled and the accused was directed to be taken into judicial custody.
( 1 ) BOTH these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the same case between the same parties.
( 2 ) BY the application being C. R. R. 2582/97 u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. petitioner has prayed for quashing the cognizance taken by the Ld. Special Judge, 24-Parganas (South) in Special Case No. 6 (5) 97 u/ss. 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act.
( 3 ) BY C. R. A. N. 1015/97 u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. , petitioner being the State of West Bengal has prayed for review of the order dated 8-8-97 passed by another Division Bench of this Court by which accused/o. P. was granted bail pending trial of the aforesaid case. This application has been filed by the State pursuant to some directions issued by the Apex Court by order dated 13-11-97 in S. L. P. (Cri) No. 3356/97.
( 4 ) FOR better appreciation of the issues involved, brief narration of some facts of the case is considered necessary.
( 5 ) ACTING upon a secret information, on 24-1-97 police intercepted accused/petitioner and two others and upon search recovered two packets containing about 2 kgs. herein from the petitioner and another packet containing about 400 gms. of heroin from the possession of one Dipak Giri being the companion of the petitioner. Police also seized an amount of Rs. 35,200/- from the possession of the third accused Jamat Ali Mondal. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and other two accused and on that very day all the three accused were arrested. Before expiry of 90 days' custody, police filed chargesheet against petitioner and others on 11-4-97.
( 6 ) APPLICATION of the petitioner for bail was rejected by this Court by an order dated 15-4-97. While rejecting the said prayer for bail, a Division Bench of this Court directed the trial Court to complete the trial within 6 weeks.
( 7 ) AGAIN on 21-6-97 petitioner prayed before the trial Court to release him on bail as the trial could not be completed within 6 weeks, but the said prayer was turned down. Thereafter, petitioner filed another application for bail before a Division Bench of this Court. By an order dated 27-6-97 the Division Bench of this Court while rejecting the said prayer for bail directed the learned trial Court to furnish the petitioner and other accused with copies of all documents mentioned in sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Code and thereafter proceed with the trial with utmost expedition.
( 8 ) FURTHER application of the petitioner for bail before a Division Bench of this Court was allowed by an order dated 8-8-97. In the said order Division Bench further observed that "since there was no submission of chargesheet on due compliance of law, the accused person is entitled to be enlarged on bail. "accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court directed by the said order to release the petitioner on bail on certain terms and conditions as mentioned therein. In the said order the Division Bench also observed that the chargesheet filed by the police was incomplete inasmuch as papers/statements of witnesses were not filed with police report. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of a Division Bench of this Court granting bail to the petitioner, State of West Bengal preferred an S. L. P. being S. L. P. (Cri) No. 3356 of 1997 before the Supreme Court. The following is the order which Supreme Court passed on the said application on 13-11-97 :-"it is plain that whatever observations have been made by the High Court in the impugned order, those are meant only to dispose of the bail application and not, in any manner, to reflect on the merits of the case. Since there is a factual dispute as to the supply of documents under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences flowing thereafter Mr. Guptoo, learned Advocate General for the State of West Bengal is permitted to move the High Court for review. The S. L. P. thus stands disposed of. "
( 9 ) SOON thereafter State ha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
