IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V. Narasingh, J.
Satendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Bail Application Nos. 7941, 7985, 11197 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2023
N.D.P.S. Act - Bail Application - Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, which stipulates the time limit for filing the charge sheet. It also referred to Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which outlines the submission of the police report to the Magistrate. The court emphasized the significance of the final report and the filing of the charge sheet within the prescribed period, highlighting the legal import of these documents in the context of taking cognizance of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of offenses under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act for carrying contraband. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of the alleged illegal custody due to the delayed filing of the charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the submission of the preliminary charge sheet within the stipulated period and the subsequent filing of the final charge sheet were in compliance with the relevant provisions. It concluded that there was no infringement of the petitioner's indefeasible right to warrant his release on 'default bail'.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the legality of the custody due to the timing of the charge sheet filings and the interpretation of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the timely submission of the charge sheet and the legal significance of the preliminary and final reports in the context of taking cognizance of the offense. It held that there was no violation of the petitioner's indefeasible right, as the charge sheet was filed within the prescribed period.
Final Decision: The bail applications were rejected, and the court disposed of the cases without costs.
JUDGMENT
V. Narasingh, J. - Since all the three BLAPLs arise out of the same P.S. Case (Chandrapur P.S. Case No.17 of 2020) (T.R. No.05/2022 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur), they were heard together on the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.K. Gaya, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
3. The petitioner (Satendra Kumar) is an accused in connection with T.R. No.05 of 2020, pending in the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, for alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur, by order dated 22.07.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner along with his two other co-accused namely, Raju Mehetwa @ Mahato (BLAPL No.7985 of 2022) and Anil Kumar Pandit (BLAPL No.11197 of 2022) were taken into custody on 27.05.2020 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 for carrying contraband (Ganja) to the tune of 245Kgs.
6. On 22.11.2020, the Investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet, styling the same as 'preliminary charge-sheet' on the 179 th day, keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
7. The order passed by the learned Special Judge on 22.11.2020 is culled out hereunder:-
T.R.-5/2020
'The case record is put up today as the I.O. of this case is submitted the Preliminary Charge Sheet no.29, Dtd. 22.11.2020 u/S 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act against the accused persons namely 1. Anil Kumar Pandit, S/O- Late Jagadish Pandit of Village- Near Pratapnagar Sabeli, P.S- Nandangari, Madoli-93, North-East Delhi, 2. Satendra Kumar, S/O- Sriram Pritsa of Village- Srirampur, P.S- Bella, Dist-Sitamani (Bihar) and 3. Raju Mehetwa, S/O-Sukan Mehetwa of Village-Kharrabisampur, P.S-Behla, Dist- Korihari (Bihar) and has kept the investigation open as per 173(8) of Cr.P.C for arrest of the other two accused persons namely Duli Bibar and Abhiram Bibar. He also submitted sixteen sheets of Case Diary, eleven sheets of statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C, two sheets of Spot Map, four sheets of Seizure list, two sheets of Zimanama and other connecting documents (in total 60 sheets). Tag the same in the case record.
Perused the preliminary charge sheet & other connecting papers and found that there is a prima facie material against the accused persons namely. 1. Anil Kumar Pandit, 2. Satendra Kumar and 3. Raju Mehetwa for commission of offence u/S 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, cognizance of the offence u/S 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act is taken against the above named accused persons.
Put up on date fixed for submission of Final Charge sheet and further order.'
8. On 11.08.2021, the Investigating Officer submitted the 'final charge-sheet' and the order passed is quoted hereunder:-
T.R.05/2020
'The record is put up today as the I.O. of this case is submitted Final Charge Sheet vide C.S.19 dated 31.07.2021 for the offence u/S- 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, against accused person namely
1. Anil Kumar Pandit, aged about- 43 years, S/o-Late Jagadish Pandit of Village- Near Pratap nagar Sabeli, PS: Nandangiri, Madoli-93, North east Delhi,
2. Satendra Kumar, aged about 27 years S/O-Sriram Krishna vill: Srirampur, Ps- Bella, Dist-Saltamani (Bihar), 3. Raju Mehetwa, aged about 19 years S/O: Sukan Mahetwa, Vill: Kharrabisampur, PS: Behla, Dist- Korihari (Bihar) 4. Duli Bibara aged about 56 years, S/O: Late Mani Bibara of Vill Gerengaguda PS: Chandrapur Dist: Rayagada 5. Abhiram Bibara, aged about 31 years, S/O: Duli Bibara, Vill: Gerengaguda, PS: Chandrapur, Dist: Rayagada showing accused person namely Abhiram Bibar
Haryana Financial Corporation V. Jagdamba Oil Mills reported in (2002) 3 SCC 496
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra - (1994) 4 SCC 602
M. Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer
Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Another - (2009) 17 SCC 631
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely filing of the charge sheet and the legal import of the preliminary and final reports in the context of taking cognizance....
The completion of the investigation within the statutory period is crucial in determining the entitlement to default bail under the NDPS Act.
A police report under Section 173(2) is not incomplete solely for lacking an FSL report if filed within the stipulated time, thus default bail cannot be claimed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pending FSL report does not render the charge sheet incomplete, and the determination of the accused's involvement in the offence is a mat....
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.
Defective charge sheet filing beyond 180 days or to wrong court entitles accused to statutory bail under NDPS Act.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right that cannot be extinguished by the mere filing of an incomplete chargesheet.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) is indefeasible and cannot be circumvented by the filing of a charge-sheet after the statutory period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge sheet can be considered complete even without the FSL report, and the accused may not be entitled to default bail.
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.