Suleman vs State (NCT Of Delhi)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 2194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Suleman – Appellant
Versus
The State (NCT Of Delhi) - Respondents
Crl.Rev. 351 of 2022
Decided on : 03-08-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nitin Bansal and Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, with ASI Rajveer

Headnote:
Default Bail - NDPS Act - 21, 29, 36A(4) - The court discussed the objective and law related to default bail under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and the relevance of the FSL report in the charge sheet. It highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the right to default bail as an indefeasible right linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also referenced relevant case law including Sanjay Dutt vs State through CBI, Bombay, Kishan Lal vs State, and M. Ravindran vs The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the complete charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time frame under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The charge sheet was filed without the FSL report, and the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of heroin.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charge sheet was filed within the prescribed time period, and the non-filing of the FSL report did not render it incomplete. The quantity recovered from the accused was of a commercial nature, barring the accused from bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for default bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the non-filing of the FSL report with the charge sheet entitled the petitioner to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that the charge sheet was filed within the prescribed time period and the quantity recovered from the accused was of a commercial nature, thus denying the petitioner's entitlement to default bail.
Final Decision: The court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

	INDEX
S.No.	Particulars	Pages
1.	Facts of the Case	2 - 4
2.	Submissions of Learned Counsels	4
3.	Default Bail Under Section 167	4 - 18
	(i) Objective	4 – 9
	(ii) Law	9 – 18
4.	FSL Report not part of the Charge Sheet	18 – 21
5.	Conclusion	21

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the order dated 05.05.2022, passed by the Learned Trial Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, wherein Default Bail of the Petitioner, under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

Facts of the Case

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:

a) The Petitioner is in custody in case FIR no. 96/2021 under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter “NDPS Act”) registered at P.S. Narela Industrial Area. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 03.03.2021 without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The charge sheet already filed mentioned that the supplementary charge sheet would be filed on the receipt of the report from forensic laboratory. The Petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2021, wherein he was found in possession of 300 gms of Heroine and 06 gms of heroine was recovered from the co-accused.

b) The Petitioner filed an application for bail in default under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court, claiming that the complete charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time frame under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act. The learned Trial Court observed that the accused would not be entitled to Default Bail as the charge sheet has been filed even though the FSL Report is not filed. In furtherance, it was observed by the learned Trial Court that the quantity recovered from the Petition would fall under the bar of commercial quantity. Thus, the onus would be upon the Petitioner to satisfy the learned Trial Court. The observations made read as under:-

“…The plea of default bail as the chargesheet has been admittedly filed within a period of 180 days of the remand, but the same is without FSL result of the seized contraband. The said issue is already settled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Krishan Lal V. State, 39(1989) DLT 392 and MohdArbaz vs State Cr Rev no. 1219/2019 dated 03.11.2020. The said issue though is now pending qua NDPS Act cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, till that time, the proposition of law as laid by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Krishan Lal (supra) case holds field. The amount of quantity recovered from the accused/applicant falls under the category of commercial quantity and bar under 37 of the NDPS Act is also applicable. Therefore, the onus is upon the applicant to satisfy the twin conditions imposed as mandated in judgment viz; Union of India through NCB Lucknow V. Nawaz Khan, Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021.

The judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant are not applicable to the present case being distinguishable on facts. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for grant of bail to accused/applicant.

Therefore, the application moved on behalf of the accused/applicant stands dismissed…”

Submissions of Learned Counsels

3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet is incomplete without FSL Report, since the IO does not know whether the substance recovered is actually a banned substance under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. Ld. Counsel for the APP for State states that the question of whether the charge sheet is incomplete without FSL Report or not, is yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the reliance should be placed on the law presently laid down by the Division Bench