THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Robin Phukan, J.
Chonghoi Haokip W/o Shri Lungsibui Thiumai - Appellant
Vs.
The Union Of India Rep. By The Standing Counsel To The Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - Respondent
Crl.Pet. No. 1257 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2023
NDPS Act - Section 36A(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 – Anticipitory Bail - Controversy - Precision - Beneficial - Be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both - Challenged correctness or otherwise of order - Prior to filing of offence report by Investigating Officer one bail - Petition for extension of period of investigation was filed on - Petitioner was arrested on and as such period of days completed on - Held, Applying the ratio laid down in case hand and also in view of pendency of two bail applications one in court below and another before this court, before filing of offence report - On petitioner has availed her right to be released on default bail which continued to remain enforceable from on which same accrued and continued to exist till on which offence report was submitted - And as such Court find sufficient force in submission of counsel for petitioner and record line to same - Counsel for respondent has opposed the petition by referring decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of this court is unable to record concurrence with his submission and ratio laid down in case referred by him to considered opinion of this court would not come into his aid as said case has to be treated as restricted to its own - Petition Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Kayel, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, namely, Smti. Chonghai Haokip, has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in NDPS Case No.215/2022, arising out of DRI Case No. 18/CL/NDPS/HEROIN & METH/DRI/GZU/2021-22, under sections 8(C)/21(C)/22(C)/ 23(C)/25 of NDPS Act, pending before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
3. It is to be mentioned here that, vide impugned order, dated 23.12.2022, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for granting her default bail.
4. In order to decide the controversy at hand, with greater precision, it would be beneficial to briefly refer to the facts of the case, leading to passing of the impugned order, dated 23.12.2022.
Thereafter, the petitioner has successfully challenged the order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati before this court in Criminal Petition No. 804/2022, and vide order dated 07.11.2022, a coordinate bench of this court has set aside the said order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Kamrup [M] in petition No. 2099/2022, as the same was passed without following the procedure prescribed by law and directed the petitioner to prefer an application for bail before the learned court below. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, [FTC] [M] No. 3 for granting default bail to the petitioner and the learned court below vide order dated 23.11.2022 has dismissed the petition, by holding that the petitioner has failed to availed of her default bail when the same was accrued on 03.08.2022, which ceased to exist on filing of the offence report against the petitioner.”
5. Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the
M. Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
The right to default bail arises after 180 days of custody without filing a chargesheet, unless timely application for extension of investigation is made and granted.
The right to default bail is an indefeasible right linked to Article 21 of the Constitution and is subject to the law and procedure laid down by the Legislature.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right that cannot be extinguished by the mere filing of an incomplete chargesheet.
The right to default bail under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the restrictions under Section 37 were central to the court's decision.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is absolute and must be granted if the prosecution fails to file a challan within the stipulated time, as per Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
Default bail entitlement under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. arises only when a chargesheet is not filed or is incomplete; timely filing of chargesheet suffices despite missing documents.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a fundamental right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is contingent upon the bail application being....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.