Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
K. Muskanja – Petitioner
Versus
State, Rep. by, Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 348, 378 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2024
NDPS Act - Statutory Bail - Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) & 29(1) 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 charge sheet was not filed within 180 days. The court dismissed the bail petition due to a petition for extension of investigation period filed by the police. The petitioner argued that the court's decision was not legally sustainable based on relevant case laws.
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 that the extension of time for investigation should have been granted only after notice to the accused. The court criticized the delay in deciding the bail application and cautioned against misuse of the limited notice by the prosecution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of default bail, the timing of extension petitions, and the accused's right to prompt release upon filing a bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's right to default bail remains enforceable if the bail application is filed, regardless of subsequent extension petitions or filing of the charge sheet. It emphasized the need for prompt action by the court to restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate for bail in case of default by the investigative agency.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and granted statutory bail to the petitioner, ordering release on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.788 of 2024 dated 13.02.2024 on the file of the Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.)
1. The petitioner/A3 has filed a statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No.788 of 2024 in Crime No.275 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 the petitioner/A3 and others for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) & 29(1) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') in Crime No.275 of 2023. The accused were arrested on 20.07.2023. Since the investigation not completed and charge sheet not filed, the petitioner on 187th day filed statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on 23.01.2024. Earlier to it, the respondent Police filed a petition under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act on 172nd day i.e., on 08.01.2024 seeking extension of statutory period of investigation for further 180 days. The petitioner produced the daily proceedings wherein the petitioner filed the petition for statutory bail on 18.01.2024 is recorded. Thereafter, the case posted for enquiry on 31.01.2024 and adjourned to 01.02.2024, 02.02.2024, 06.02.2024, 07.02.2024, 09.02.2024 and 12.02.2024 Thereafter, the petition for statutory bail was dismissed on 13.02.2024. The respondent Police filed a petition seeking extension of time in Crl.M.P.No.411 of 2024 on 08.01.2024, thereafter for enquiry, it had been adjourned to 18.01.2024, 22.01.2024, 24.01.2024, 31.01.2024, and posted for filing counter on 05.02.2024, 09.02.2024, 12.02.2024 and finally, on 13.02.2024, a common order in both the petitions passed allowing the extension of period of investigation in Crl.M.P.No.411 of 2024 and dismissing the statutory bail of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.788 of 2024. 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 Supreme Court Cases 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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police filed counter and submitted that on 20.07.2023 at about 18.00 hours, the defacto complainant/Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent Police Station was on duty, at that time, he received secret information about illegal transport of narcotic substance and entered the same in the General Diary, went along with police team viz., Tr.Saadik Baasha, Head Constable and Tmt.Ambika, Woman Head Constable went to scene of occurrence at near Naramuga Vinayagar Temple, Perambur. At that time, the three unknown persons came on that place with suspicious red colour trolly bag. When they saw the Police team, they tried to escape from the spot and the respondent police secured them and conducted search and found 22.50 kgs Charas and 400 ml Hashish Oil. Totally, 22.50 kgs Charas and 400 ml Hashish Oil were in their possession, which were seized from them under seizure mahazar in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and recorded their confession statements. After that, the arrested accused along with the seized contrabands taken to the respondent Police station. A case was registered in Crime No.275 of 2023 for offence under Sections 8(c
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 obligations of the concerned Magistrate to promptly consider ....
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 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 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 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 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 right to default bail under Section 167(2) is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be infringed by procedural lapses in extending investigation periods.
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
