Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 3080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Shankar - Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 44412 of 2019
Decided On : 20-12-2019
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.376(a)(b), S.376(b), S.376(c), S.376(d), S.376(d)(a), S.376(d)(b), S.376, S.376(a)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.36(a)(4), S.22, S.36(a)(4)
Headnote
Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for granting default bail when the investigation cannot be completed within the specified period. Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. requires the police to submit a report to the Magistrate after completing the investigation. The FSL report is an essential part of the investigation under the NDPS Act and is necessary for establishing the nature and content of the contraband. The court also referred to other relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the period of 180 days had expired and the FSL report had not been received. The police had filed a report under Section 173(2) without the FSL report. The petitioner argued that the report was incomplete and he was entitled to default bail. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the NDPS Act and held that the report filed by the police without the FSL report cannot be considered incomplete. The court also noted that the mistake in the FSL report regarding the FIR number and date was a clerical error and did not affect the validity of the report. The court dismissed the petition and directed the FSL to avoid such mistakes in the future.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 167(2) and Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. and held that the report filed by the police without the FSL report cannot be considered incomplete. The court also noted that the mistake in the FSL report regarding the FIR number and date was a clerical error and did not affect the validity of the report.
Ratio Decidendi: The report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. without the FSL report cannot be considered incomplete. A mistake in the FSL report regarding the FIR number and date is a clerical error and does not affect the validity of the report.
Result: The petition is dismissed as the report filed by the police is not incomplete and the petitioner is not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
For the Appellant : Aditya Sanghi
For the Respondents: Arjun Singh Yadav, Asstt. A.G.
ORDER :
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 167(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for grant of default bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0087 dated 04.04.2019 registered under Sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') at Police Station Civil Lines Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was apprehended on 04.04.2019 by the police party headed by ASI Deepak Kumar on suspicion and on search as per the prescribed procedure 5 boxes of NRX Tramadol Hydrochloride Diclofenac Sodium Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Chlorpheniramine Maleate Capsules Parvorin Spas Ridley containing 200 capsules each were recovered from the bag carried by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2019 and the above- said FIR was registered against him. On interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that he had purchased aforesaid 1000 intoxicating capsules from one person named Sardar from Peeragarhi, Delhi. On completion of investigation, the police filed report dated 24.05.2019 under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner who is in custody since his arrest on 04.04.2019.
3. The petitioner has filed present petition on the ground that the period of 180 days has expired and FSL Report has not been received and report filed under Section 173(2) was liable to be treated as incomplete. Case is covered by the ratio of judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in CRR-4659-2015 titled 'Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and another v. State of Punjab' decided on 30.11.2018. Therefore the petitioner may be granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
4. The petition has been opposed by the learned State Counsel in terms of reply filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Aryan Chaudhary, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter Sirsa who has submitted therein that after completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court on 24.05.2019 without receipt of FSL Report and no application under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time was filed. FSL Report was received on 26.06.2019 but in the said report number of FIR was wrongly mentioned as 88 dated 06.04.2019 instead of 87 dated 04.04.2019 which was initially attached in the record of case FIR No. 88 dated 06.04.2019. On non receipt of FSL report letter No. 346-SP dated 24.10.2019 was written by Dy. S.P.(H.Q.), Sirsa to Director, FSL, Madhuban, Kamal who vide letter No. 12724 dated 24.10.2019 replied that in FSL report No. 19/N.2184 dated 26.06.2019 FIR No. 87 dated 04.04.2019 was inadvertently typed as 88 dated 06.04.2019 and memo number was also inadvertently typed as 595A and FIR number may be read as 87 dated 04.04.2019 and memo number may be read as 595A dated 06.04.2019. On detection of mistake, the same was attached with the record of the present case.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and gone through the relevant record.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2019, incomplete report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed on 25.04.2019 without FSL report which was filed after expiry of more than 180 days. No application for extension of time was filed under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is entitled to grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the petition may be allowed accordingly. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in CRR No. 4659 of 2015 titled as Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and another v. State of Punjab decided on 30.11.2018 and the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Baltej Singh alias Chiri v. State of Haryana, 2019 (4) RCR (Criminal) 744, CRR-1347-2017 titled 'Ravi Dutt Sharma v. State
