Back
2011(3) RCR(Cri) 297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.S.Saron, J.
Rakesh Kumar and another -Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Crl. Misc. No.M-14429 of 2010
Decided on: 21.4.2011
Narcotic Drugs - Bail - Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 36-A(4) of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regular bail in a case registered against them for the offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The primary ground for bail was the delay in filing the challan, one day after the period of 180 days had elapsed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application seeking extension of time did not contain the specific and compelling reasons required by Section 36-A(4) of the Act. The reasons recorded by the trial Court also did not adhere to the conditions provided for by the Act and considered by the Supreme Court in a similar case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail due to the delay in filing the challan beyond the period of 180 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 36-A(4) of the Act, which allows for an extension of the investigation period up to one year, provided specific conditions are met. It emphasized the need for the Public Prosecutor to indicate the progress of the investigation and provide specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the stipulated period.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.S. SARON, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them for the offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’).
3. The primary ground that has been urged for the grant of bail is that the petitioners were arrested on 12.10.2009 and the prosecution filed its challan on 13.4.2010 i.e. one day after the period of 180 days had elapsed. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” -for shortg) as modified by Section 36-A (4) of the Act after expiry of 180 days, the petitioners are liable to be released from custody.
4. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure A.1) has observed that there was a delay of one day in filing the challan. It was stated by the Investigating Officer that he was busy in connection with the investigation in some other case. Accordingly, the learned trial Court deemed it appropriate to extend the period for completing the investigation by one day in terms of its aforesaid order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure A.1). The application for bail filed by the petitioners was declined on the same day vide order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure P.4).
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the application seeking extension of time for presenting the challan was liable to be filed before the expiry of period of 180 days. In any case, it is submitted that extension of time could be given in terms of Section 36-A (4) of the Act provided the Public Prosecutor indicates the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 180 days. It is submitted that no specific reasons have been mentioned by the Public Prosecutor, besides, there is no application of mind on his part.
6. In response, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the investigation in the case was completed on 6.1.2011. However, the challan could not be filed as the Investigating Officer, ASI Avtar Singh, Police Station Mukandpur had during investigation gone to Rajiv Gandhi University of Law, Patiala for doing a course. Thereafter, he went to Jhajjar and Sonepat districts, besides, he went for investigation regarding two other cases and he also remained busy in VIP and other duties. Therefore, the challan could not be presented in time and the time had elapsed. It is submitted that the learned trial Court having extended the time for filing the challan, has committed no error and the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of bail on that account.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The petitioners were apprehended on the basis of secret information with 3 kgs of smack. According to the learned State counsel, there is no other case against them. The petitioners were arrested on 12.10.2009 and the challan in the case was filed on 13.4.2010 i.e. one day after the period of 180 days had elapsed. ASI Avtar Singh, the investigating officer filed an application for extension of time. A copy of the application that was filed has been submitted during the course of hearing. It is merely mentioned by the investigating officer that he had gone to Rajiv Gandhi University of Law, Patiala for doing a course. Then he was deputed for duty at Jhajjar and Sonepat districts, besides, he was busy in investigation of two other cases. During investigation, he was also busy in VIP and other duties, therefore, the challan could not be presented in time and the time had lapsed. The said application was merely forwarded by the Additional Public Prosecutor.
8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, the provisions of Section 36-A (4) of the Act may be noticed, which reads as under:
“(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quanti
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
