Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Sivasankaran @ Pittu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1075 of 2023
Decided On : 26-06-2023
NDPS Act - Statutory Bail - Sections 8[c], 22[c], 29[1] - 36[A][4]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a statutory bail petition after the respondent police failed to file a final report within the statutory period of 180 days. The court allowed an extension for investigation and dismissed the bail application without the accused being present or represented by counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the failure to produce the accused before the court and inform them about the extension application was a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: Violation of accused's rights under Article 21, Procedural irregularity in allowing extension without accused's presence or representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to procure the presence of the accused before the court and inform them about the application for extension of time for investigation is a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and statutory bail was granted to the petitioner with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the default bail application dismissed order dated 23.05.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.3215 of 2023 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act Chennai connected with Cr.No.328 of 2022 (on the file of respondent police)
1. This Criminal Revision case has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of statutory bail petition, dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police has registered a case against the petitioner along with other accused persons in Crime No.328 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 8 [c], 22 [c] and 29 [1] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for illegal possession of 0.1 gram of Lysergide (LSD) and 8 Nos. of LSD Stamps (weighing 130 mg). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.11.2022. The learned counsel further submitted that since the respondent Police has not filed final report within statutory period of 180 days, the petitioner/accused filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3215 of 2023 on 12.05.2023 for statutory bail. The prosecution has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2964 of 2023 under Section 36 [A] [4] of NDPS Act on 04.05.2023 which is before 180 days for extension of statutory period to complete the investigation.
The learned Principal Special Judge passed a common order, allowing the extension application and dismissed the statutory bail application on 23.05.2023. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the learned Principal Special Judge, while deciding the application for extension of statutory period of investigation on 23.05.2023, neither the accused was heard before the Court either physically or virtually nor he was represented by the his counsel. In the absence of the accused, mere allowing the extension petition is a violation of principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1290 in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vrs. State of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. Thus, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the petitioner.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has objected for grant of bail. He further submitted that the accused was remanded on 11.11.2022. According to him, there is no illegality in the order dated 23.05.2023 and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision petition.
4. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
5. On a perusal of records, it is seen that the respondent police has registered a case against the petitioner along with other accused persons in Crime No.328 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 8 [c], 22 [c] and 29 [1] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for illegal possession of 0.1 gram of Lysergide (LSD) and 8 Nos. of LSD Stamps (weighing 130 mg). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.11.2022. Since the respondent Police has not filed final report within statutory period of 180 days, the petitioner/accused filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3215 of 2023 on 12.05.2023 for statutory bail. The prosecution has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2964 of 2023 under Section 36 [A] [4] of NDPS Act on 04.05.2023 which is before 180 days for extension of statutory period to complete the investigation. On hearing both the applications, the learned Principal Judge on 23.05.2023, allowed the application filed for extension of statutory period for investigation and dismissed the bail application filed by the accused.
6. No doubt while allowing the application filed seeking for extension time for investigation in Crl.M.P.No.2964 of 2023 on 23.05.2023, the accused was not prod
The procedural safeguards play an important role in protecting the liberty guaranteed by Article 21, and failure to adhere to these safeguards can result in a violation of the accused's rights under ....
The accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. remains enforceable, and the court must promptly decide on bail applications to prevent the prosecution from circumventing this right.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the prosecutor's obligations in seeking extension of time under S....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the conditions for granting extension of time for investigation u....
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the court must take prompt action to enforce this right, restricting t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the limitations on the Prosecutor's rights under Section 36-A(4) ....
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the NDPS Act, and this right should not be denied due to delays or the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the obligations of the concerned Magistrate to promptly consider ....
The right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right that cannot be denied if the statutory period for filing a charge sheet is exceeded without proper extension and noti....
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
