SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Bibhas Ranjan De, JJ.
Raju Mandal - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRM (NDPS) No. 213 of 2022
Decided On : 01-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Joy Chakraborty, Advocate, Ranadeb Sengupta, Advocate

The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is extinguished upon the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet with the required report and the Court taking cognizance.

Headnote:

NDPS - Bail Application - Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 - Section 36a

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the charge-sheet being filed without the Chemical Examination Report within 180 days of arrest. The petitioner's bail application was rejected by the jurisdictional Court and the High Court. The police later filed a supplementary charge-sheet with the Chemical Examination Report, and the Court took cognizance. The petitioner's right to default bail was extinguished at this point.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioner's right to default bail was extinguished upon the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet with the Chemical Examination Report and the Court taking cognizance. The petitioner's subsequent bail applications were rejected, and the Court found the petitioner unable to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the act of 1985, thus denying bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the charge-sheet being filed without the Chemical Examination Report within 180 days of arrest.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's right to default bail was extinguished upon the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet with the Chemical Examination Report and the Court taking cognizance. The Court also found the petitioner unable to overcome the restrictions under Section 37 of the act of 1985, thus denying bail.

Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the petitioner was denied bail.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The petitioner has applied for bail in respect of NDPS Case No. 15 of 2020 arising out of Englishbazar P.S case No. 155 of 2020 dated February 16, 2020 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was arrested on February 16, 2020. The police had filed charge-sheet on august 12, 2020. The charge-sheet had been filed without the Chemical Examination Report. according to him, the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as the police had failed to submit the charge-sheet with the Chemical Examination Report within 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner. Moreover, the police has not prayed for or obtained extension of time to file the charge-sheet under Section 36a of the act of 1985.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had applied for default bail on august 14, 2020. The learned jurisdictional Court had turned down such prayer erroneously. He has submitted that, since the charge-sheet filed on august 14, 2020, was not accompanied with the Chemical Examination Report, the petitioner was entitled to default bail.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the issue as to whether a charge-sheet filed without the Chemical Examination Report is incomplete or not and, therefore, the accused being entitled to default bail is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has referred to the order dated December 13, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal Nos. 8164-8166/2021(MOHD. aRBaZ & Ors. vs. State of NCT DELHI). He has also referred to various judgements of the High Courts and submitted that, different High Courts have taken different views with regard to the issue. He has referred to the judgement and order dated November 3, 2020 passed in CRL.REV.P. 1219/2019 and CRL.M.a.10252/2020 (MOHD. aRBaZ vs. State of NCT DELHI) passed by the Delhi High Court. He has also referred to the order dated September 9, 2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 619 of 2021 (Charanjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana), order dated July 15, 2021 in State of Harayana vs. DILDaR RaM @ DaRI), order dated November 30, 2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 4659 of 2015 ( ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another vs. State of Punjab) of the Punjab Haryana High Court and 2002 Volume 3 MHLJ 689 (Sunil Vasantraw Phulbande and another vs. State of Maharashtra) passed by the Bombay High Court in support of his contentions.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that, the petitioner was arrested on February 16, 2020 with commercial quantity of narcotics. The petitioner had been produced before the jurisdictional court on February 17, 2020. The police had filed a charge-sheet on august 12, 2020 without the Chemical Examination Report in respect of the contraband seized. The Chemical Examination Report was subsequently obtained and supplementary charge-sheet including the same had been filed on July 7, 2021. The Court has taken the supplementary charge-sheet into consideration and took cognizance on July 12, 2021. He has contended that, a charge-sheet without the Chemical Examination Report cannot be construed to be no charge-sheet at all. He has referred to the provisions of Section 36a of the act of 1985. He has contended that, the petitioner is not entitled to default bail in the facts of the present case.

6. Section 36a of the act of 1985 which has been referred to be the parties is as follows :-

    '36a. Offences triable by Special Courts.-

    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

    (a) all offences under this act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Speical Courts t

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top