Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Nandhakumar – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 328 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2024
NDPS Act - Statutory Bail - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the investigation was not completed and charge sheet not filed within 180 days. The court dismissed the bail and allowed the extension petition filed by the respondent Police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the rights of the Prosecutor under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act were discussed in detail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of default bail, the rights of the accused and the Prosecutor under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act, and the legality of the extension of time for investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's right to default bail cannot be denied on account of delay in deciding the bail application or erroneous rejection of the same. It emphasized that the accused's right to be released on default bail remains enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application or subsequent filing of the charge sheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the court.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and Statutory Bail was granted to the petitioner with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 559 of 2024 in Cr. No. 300 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police dated 13.02.2024 and set aside the order, dated 13.02.2024.
1. The petitioner/A2 has filed a statutory bail in Crl. M.P. No. 559 of 2024 in Crime No. 300 of 2023 before the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court Under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai. The learned Judge vide order, dated 13.02.2024 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 A1, A2/petitioner and A3 for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) in Crime No. 300 of 2023. Since the investigation not completed and charge sheet not filed, the petitioner on 186th day filed statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 12.01.2024. Earlier to it, the respondent Police filed a petition under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act on 176th day i.e. on 08.01.2024 seeking extension of statutory period of investigation for further 180 days. The respondent Police filed a petition seeking extension of time in Crl. M.P. No. 412 of 2024 on 08.01.2024. The Court below on 08.02.2024 allowed the petition filed by the prosecution seeking extension of time for investigation and on 13.02.2024 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485 and this Court in Ajith vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Chennai in Crl. R.C. No. 924 of 2023, dated 22.06.2023 followed the Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir and Others vs. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police filed counter and submitted that on 17.07.2023, at about 04.00 hours, when the Sub Inspector of Police was in station, he received secret information about the illegal transportation of narcotic substance and entered the same in the general diary. After getting permission from the Inspector of Police, the Sub Inspector of Police along with two Grade-I Police Constables went to the scene of occurrence wherein the team while checking the vehicles, on seeking the Police, three persons escaped from the white Volks Wagan car bearing registration No. TN-54-E-1235. Immediately, the Police team secured the said persons and they disclosed their identify as Vasanth/A1, Nandakumar/A2/petitioner and Saran/A3. On search, the accused were in possession of 21 kgs of ganja and recorded their confession statements from them and also seized the case properties under the cover of seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses. The confession statement reveals that the accused persons purchased ganja from Arakku at Andhra Pradesh and the same given to one Ajithkumar/A4 at Coimbatore. Thereafter, the respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No. 300 of 2023 for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act against the accused and produced them before the concerned Magistrate for remand. Then, the samples of contraband sent to the Forensic Lab, Chennai for chemical analysis and the report received on 11.10.2023.
4. He further submitted that the charge sheet ought to be filed before the concerned court within 180 days. On 08.01.2024 i.e. 176th day, the learned Special Public Prosecutor filed extension application of statutory period of in
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 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 conditions for granting extension of time for investigation u....
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 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....
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 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 accused has a constitutional right to default bail when statutory time limits for investigation are exceeded, and the absence of procedural safeguards in extension requests constitutes a violatio....
The accused's right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is violated if the extension for investigation is not properly notified, infringing upon their rights under Article 21 of the....
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
