IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.
Atmaprakash and another – Appellant
Versus
The State of Orissa – Respondent
Crl Rev No.354 of 2021
Decided on : 22-04-2022
default bail - N.D.P.S. Act - 20(b)(ii)C/27-A/29 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court analyzed the right of the accused to default bail, the extension of time for filing charge-sheet, and the interpretation of the legal provisions. The court highlighted the constitutional safeguard of personal liberty and the legislative intent of completing investigations within a time-bound period. The judgment affirmed the right to default bail as an indefeasible right linked to Article 21 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were apprehended for illegal possession and transportation of ganja. The petitioners sought default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. as the charge-sheet was not filed within 180 days from the date of remand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for extension of time had been allowed after hearing both sides, and the accused filed the application for default bail after the charge-sheet was submitted. The court concluded that the learned Special Judge did not commit any illegality in rejecting the application for default bail.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right linked to Article 21 of the Constitution and is subject to the law and procedure laid down by the Legislature. The court emphasized the legislative intent of completing investigations within a time-bound period and the premium on personal liberty.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, finding it devoid of merit, and upheld the order of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. The present criminal revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 31.08.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri in T.R. Case No.103 of 2020 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)C/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which arises out of Mathili P.S. Case No.130 of 2020 registered on 14.09.2020. In the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, learned Special Judge, Malkangiri has refused to grant default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The factual backdrop of the case in gist is that one Raghunath Majhi, IIC of Mathili Police Station has drawn a plain paper FIR on 14.09.2020 inter alia alleging that while he was performing the patrolling duty at NH-326 with his team near Forest Check Gate, Govindapally at about 8.45 P.M. they saw one two wheeler and one four wheeler vehicle came back to back towards them in high speed from Govindapally side. On seeing the police team, the head lights of the vehicles were switched off at a little distance. On suspicious, the police team proceeded towards the vehicles. On seeing the police team, the occupant of both the vehicles started running towards the jungle area. However, the police team managed to catch hold of two of them and the others managed to escape into the jungle by taking advantage of the darkness of the night. The two persons who were apprehended at the spot when asked about their fleeing from the spot, they could not give any satisfactory answer. Later on, they both confessed that they were carrying ganja inside the car as well as in the motorcycle without any valid license or documents for such illegal possession and transportation. On further interrogation, one of them disclosed his name was Atmaprakash (Petitioner No.1) and the other person was Kuldeep Rabat @ Kumar (Petitioner No.2). Further, on search of the vehicle, it was dictated by the police that they were illegally transporting contraband ganja in three packets. The total weight of which was about 60 kgs. 950 gms. They further disclosed that they were inside the card and Atmaprakash was driven the said car and Kuldeep Kumar was seated on the side of the driver in the front seat and Vinod who is the associate of Sankar Hindi was the pillion rider in the vehicle. The contraband ganja was procured from Malkangiri and Mahananda Mandal, Dillip Biswas, Nilakantha Basu of village MV-84 are the financers. Further it was disclosed that the consignment was to be delivered to one Ajay Verma of Faridabad, who had engaged these persons for transportation of ganja and he himself was waiting at Jeypore.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that the FIR was lodged at Mathili police station on 14.09.2020. On being arrested, the two accused persons were forwarded to court on 15.09.2020. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that after investigation, the I.O. has filed charge-sheet on 26.04.2021 under the aforesaid sections of the N.D.P.S. act.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that in view of the provision contained under Section 36-A (4) of N.D.P.S. Act, the charge-sheet in the present case should have been filed within 180 days from the date when the accused were remanded to the custody for the first time. He further contends that in view of the Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. stands modified and the I.O. is required to file charge-sheet within 180 days instead of 90 days as provided under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, he submits that the right is accrued to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in case the charge-sheet is not filed within 180 days from the date of first remand of the accused to custody. In the present case, the accused persons were first remanded to custody on 15.09.2020, therefore the period of 180 days as provided under Section 36-A(4) comes to an end on 13.03.2021. Since the I.O. could not submit the cha
Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State Of Gujarat
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra
M. Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam
State through CBI vs. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat & anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.