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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
Mohammad Jamrudeen - Appellant
Vs.
Inspector of Police, Tambaram - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 169 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.S. Sasi Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: S. Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision - NDPS Act - Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - 167(2) Cr.P.C., 36-A(4) of NDPS Act - The judgment discusses the accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the prosecutor's right to seek extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act. It highlights the court's interpretation of the accused's indefeasible right to default bail, the prosecutor's obligations, and the consequences of delay in deciding bail applications and extension petitions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the charge sheet was not filed within 180 days. The court dismissed the bail and allowed the extension of the investigation period. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not legally sustainable based on previous court decisions.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the accused's right to default bail and the prosecutor's obligations under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act. It found that the accused's right to default bail remains enforceable, and the prosecutor cannot defeat this right by subsequently filing an extension petition. The court criticized the delay in deciding bail applications and extension petitions and granted statutory bail to the petitioner.

Issues: The key issues were the accused's right to default bail, the prosecutor's obligations in seeking extension of time, and the consequences of delay in deciding bail applications and extension petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes that the accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. remains enforceable, and the prosecutor cannot defeat this right by subsequently filing an extension petition. It emphasizes the need for prompt action by the court in deciding bail applications and extension petitions to prevent the frustration of the legislative mandate.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and statutory bail was granted to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.9715 of 2023 dated 09.01.2024 by the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai by allowing this Revision Petition.)

1. The petitioner has filed a statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No.9715 of 2023 in Crime No.206 of 2023 before the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court Under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai. The learned Judge vide order, dated 09.01.2024 dismissed the same, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioner for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') in Crime No.206 of 2023. The accused was arrested on 18.06.2023. Since the investigation not completed and charge sheet not filed, the petitioner on 181st day filed statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on 15.12.2023. Earlier to it, the respondent Police filed a petition under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act on 177th day i.e., on 11.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.9595 of 2023 seeking extension of statutory period of investigation for further 180 days. Notice was served on 19.12.2023. Finally, on 09.01.2024 a common order in both the petitions passed allowing the extension of period of investigation in Crl.M.P.No.9595 of 2023 and dismissing the statutory bail of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.9715 of 2023. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “M.Ravindran Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485” and this Court in “Ajith Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, E-9, Thazhambur Police Station, Chennai-600130 in Crl.R.C.No.924 of 2023, dated 22.06.2023” followed the “Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir & Ors., Versus National Investigating Agency in Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2023” the impugned order passed by the Court below is not legally sustainable.

3. The learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing for the respondent Police filed a counter and submitted that on 18.06.2023 at about 12.00 hours, the defacto complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent Police Station was on duty, at that time, he received a secret information about illegal transport of narcotic substance, based on that, he went along with police team to the scene of occurrence i.e., nearby Perungalathur Railway Gate East. At that time, the petitioner came from there suspiciously. When they saw the Police team, he tried to escape from the spot and the respondent police secured him and conducted search and seized 22.500 kgs of Ganja from the accused person under seizure mahazar in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement. After that, the arrested accused along with the seized contrabands taken to the respondent Police station. A case was registered in Crime No.206 of 2023 for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused persons on 18.06.2023 and remanded them to judicial custody.

4. He further submitted that the charge sheet ought to be filed before the concerned court within 180 days. On 11.12.2023, the learned Special Public Prosecutor filed extension application of statutory period of investigation under Section 36-4(A) of NDPS Act before the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai on 177th day. On 19.12.2023, the respondent Police served summon informing the prosecution side filed an extension application of statutory period to the accused and obtained an acknowledgment. Thereafter, the respondent Police produced the acknowledgment before the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.9595 of 2023 in Crime No.206 of 2023 and the same was allowed on 09.01.2024 and extended fur

          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