Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Arun - Petitioner
Versus
State, Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, PEW, P.S. Pallikaranai. Crime No.208 of 2023 - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2024
Decided On : 08-02-2024
STATUTORY BAIL - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 36-A(4) of NDPS Act; Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding statutory bail, emphasizing the right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court highlighted that the right to default bail is indefeasible and cannot be denied if the statutory period for filing a charge sheet is exceeded without proper extension. The court also reiterated the necessity for the prosecution to notify the accused regarding any extension of the investigation period, ensuring the accused's right to be heard. The court ultimately found that the lower court's dismissal of the statutory bail was not legally sustainable, leading to the granting of bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after being arrested for drug-related offenses under the NDPS Act. The petitioner filed for bail on the 181st day of custody, while the prosecution had filed for an extension of the investigation period on the 173rd day. The lower court dismissed the bail application, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court's order dismissing the statutory bail was not legally sustainable. It emphasized the right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the necessity for the prosecution to provide notice to the accused regarding any extension of the investigation period.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. given the prosecution's application for extension of the investigation period and the timing of the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right that accrues to the accused upon the expiration of the statutory period for filing a charge sheet. The prosecution's application for extension must be considered in conjunction with the bail application, and the accused must be notified of any such extension. Failure to do so undermines the accused's right to personal liberty.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's order and granted statutory bail to the petitioner, imposing specific conditions for the bail.
ORDER :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
(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.8733 of 2023 dated 09.01.2024 by the learned Principal Special Court under EC NDPS Act Cases at Chennai by allowing this Revision Petition.)
The petitioner has filed a statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No.8733 of 2023 in Crime No.185 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), r/w 22(C) and 22(b) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') in Crime No.208 of 2023. The accused was arrested on 19.05.2023. 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 15.11.2023. Earlier to it, the respondent Police filed a petition under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act on 173rd day i.e., on 07.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.8643 of 2023 seeking extension of statutory period of investigation for further 180 days. Notice was served on 24.11.2023. 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.8643 of 2023 and dismissing the statutory bail of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.8733 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 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 Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing for the respondent Police filed a counter and submitted that on 19.05.2023 at about 10.30 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 Selayur Bharath University. 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 MDMA ECSTACY-100 Tablets weighing 45 grams [Commercial Quantity], Cocain-8 gm, LSD Stamp- 4Nos. weighin0.03 grams 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 in No.208 of 2023 for offence under Sections 8(c), 22(C) and 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused persons on 19.05.2023 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 07.11.2023, 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 173rd day. On 24.11.2023, 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 respo
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 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 obligations of the concerned Magistrate to promptly consider ....
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'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....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be infringed by procedural lapses in extending investigation periods.
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....
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
