Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Pankaj Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 336 of 2023 AND Cr.M.(BAIL) 451 of 2023
Decided On : 05-09-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Bail Application - NDPS Act - 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36A NDPS Act - 23.03.2022 - 22.04.2022
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36A NDPS Act after the CRCL report was filed on 22.04.2022, following the filing of the complaint on 23.03.2022 without the CRCL report. The trial court dismissed the bail application, stating that the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period of 180 days and cannot be considered incomplete.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the chargesheet filed without the CRCL report was not incomplete as it was filed within the statutory period. The court also noted that the CRCL report was filed after the chargesheet and the bail application, and therefore dismissed the petitioner's application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the chargesheet filed without the CRCL report qualified as a defective chargesheet and whether the accused was entitled to default bail after being in custody for more than 180 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the chargesheet filed within the statutory period cannot be considered incomplete solely due to the absence of the CRCL report. It also cited previous judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that the completion of the investigation within the statutory period was the determining factor.
Final Decision: The petition lacked merit and was dismissed by the court, along with the pending application.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Ld. Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, Delhi vide which the interim bail application as well as default bail application filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36A NDPS Act, were dismissed.
2. The present petition has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner was formally arrested in this case on 25.09.2021 and thereafter, complaint/chargesheet was filed on 23.03.2022 without the CRCL report. Subsequently, it is only after the petitioner filed default bail application on 04.04.2022, the CRCL report was filed at a belated stage on 22.04.2022.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, petitioner filed an application seeking interim bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C and default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36A NDPS Act on 04.04.2022. In the meanwhile, on 22.04.2022, the CRCL Report was filed and vide impugned order dated 03.01.2023, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed petitioner's bail application with the following observations:
"The charge-sheet was filed within limitation i.e. on 23.03.2022 however, the CRCL report was filed on 23.04.2022. As far as the factum of incomplete charge-sheet is concerned on the basis of non filing of CRCL report, it is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mehabub Rehman @ Empha Vs State, Crl. Revision P. No. 340/2020 dated 22.03.2021 and Mohd. Arbaz Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl. Revision Petition 1219/2019 dated 03.11.2020 that mere non filing of FSL report do not make the chargesheet incomplete. The charge sheet was filed within 180 days i.e. on 23.03.2022. Hence, no ground made out to release the applicant/accused Pankaj Gupta on bail u/s 167 (2) Cr.PC r/w section 36A (4) NDPS Act. The orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court are of no help to that applicant as in the present matter the CRCL report has already been filed before the order in the abovementioned SLPS i.e. on 09.11.2022 and the FSL report was filed in the present matter on 22.04.2022 moreover still the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for adjudication. Hence, the present applications for default and interim bail stands dismissed.
Application disposed of accordingly.."
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2021 and the complaint was filed, without the CRCL report, on 23.03.2022, therefore the petitioner is entitled to default bail as the CRCL report was filed subsequently on 23.04.2022 but the application u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A NDPS Act was filed on 04.04.2022, which was before the filing of the CRCL report, and submitted that if the complete chargesheet is not filed within the requisite period of 180 days, the accused persons are entitled to default bail. He further submitted that the CRCL report is the primary evidence in this case and the most critical part of the chargesheet, without which the whole case of the NCB could not be proved prima facie. He further submitted that at the time of seizure no testing was done prima-facie to ascertain whether the property recovered was covered under the NDPS act or not. He further submitted that as per the prosecution the complaint is filed without CRCL report which means investigation is still going on U/s 173(8) of Cr.P.C, however, no permission was ever sought for extension of investigation beyond 180 days and hence, the custody of the petitioner beyond 180 days for not filing the complete chargesheet is illegal and he is liable to be released on bail. Lastly, it is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a previous convict and there is no reasonable ground to believe that he will commit any offence if released on bail. Ld. counsel for petitioner, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on A
The completion of the investigation within the statutory period is crucial in determining the entitlement to default bail under the NDPS Act.
Non-filing of the FSL report along with the charge sheet does not render the charge sheet incomplete, and therefore, no right of default bail is accrued in favor of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pending FSL report does not render the charge sheet incomplete, and the determination of the accused's involvement in the offence is a mat....
The absence of an FSL report does not invalidate a charge sheet under NDPS Act, affirming the right to default bail remains linked to timely completion of investigations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge sheet can be considered complete even without the FSL report, and the accused may not be entitled to default bail.
The absence of an FSL report does not render a chargesheet incomplete; the right to default bail ceases once a chargesheet is filed, regardless of pending investigations.
A police report under Section 173(2) is not incomplete solely for lacking an FSL report if filed within the stipulated time, thus default bail cannot be claimed.
The non-filing of FSL report with the challan does not vitiate the challan or entitle the applicant to default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
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
