IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Amarjit Alias Aman Alias Amni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-1624-2022
Decided On : 05-08-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - 173(2) Cr.P.C. - 36(4) of the NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of heroin. The challan was presented without the FSL report, and no application for extension of time was filed by the State. The trial Court released the petitioner on default bail till receipt of FSL report.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Criminal Revision, setting aside the order for default bail and ordering the petitioner's release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds.
Issues: The main issue was whether default bail should be granted when the challan was presented without the FSL report and no application for extension of time was filed by the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Division Bench judgment and held that a challan presented without the FSL report can be termed incomplete, entitling the accused to default bail unless an application for extension of time is filed.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Challenge in the present Criminal Revision is to the order dated 06.06.2022 to the extent that the Special Judge Under NDPS Act, Fatehabad, in an application for bail under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act and Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. had ordered the release of the petitioner on default bail 'till receipt of FSL report' instead of allowing the said application.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2022 and the challan has been presented on 06.04.2022 and the said challan did not contain the FSL report. It is further submitted that since the alleged recovery effected in the present case is 30 grams 45 milligrams of heroin thus, challan was to be presented within a period of 60 days. It is contended that the challan was presented on 06.04.2022 without annexing the FSL report. It is further contended that application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-A of the NDPS Act was filed on 01.06.2022 and no application for extension of time to complete investigation was filed by the prosecution in terms of Section 36(4) of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the FSL report has not been submitted even till date.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CRR No. 4659 of 2015 titled as 'Ajit singh @ Jeeta and anoher Vs. State of Punjab' to contend that in such a situation the petitioner deserves the concession of default bail. It is also contended that in view of the conflict of opinion on the said point, the matter was referred to a Division Bench and has further relied upon a judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed in CRR No. 1135 of 2020 titled as 'Suresh Vs. State of Haryana' in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the entire aspect, was pleased to release the petitioner/accused therein on conditional bail with the clarification that in case the legal point is held against the petitioner/accused therein, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/ modification of the order, if warranted at that stage. It is contended that in the impugned order, the abovesaid important contentions have not been considered and has thus, prayed that the impugned order dated 24.05.2021 be set aside.
4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that there is a plethora of judgments, which support the proposition that once the challan has been presented even without the FSL report, then also, default bail cannot be granted.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paperbook.
6. The relevant portion of the judgment in Suresh's case (supra) passed by a Coordinate Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:
'2. Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad had dismissed the Petitioner's Application for Bail under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act read with Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
xxx--xxx-xxx
4. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (supra) was passed in view of a question sent up for consideration in those seven cases, which was as follows:-
'Whether the presentation of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the police without the report of Chemical examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory amounts to incomplete challan and in the absence of any extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?'
5. The Division Bench answered the above reference by holding that a Challan presented without Chemical Examiner's Report can only be termed as an incomplete one, which would result in Default Bail to the accused unless an Application was moved by the Investigating Agency with a prayer for extension of time. The relevant extracts from the decision of the Division Bench are set down as below :-
'For this reason as well, it is essential that the re
A challan presented without the FSL report can be deemed incomplete, entitling the accused to default bail unless an application for extension of time is filed.
The essential nature of the FSL report in establishing the nature of contraband and the inability to take cognizance of an offence under the NDPS Act without it.
The significance of the FSL report in establishing the nature of contraband and the accused's culpability under the NDPS Act, entitling the accused to default bail if the challan is submitted without....
The necessity of the FSL report in the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for establishing a case under the NDPS Act and granting default bail.
Filing a challan without the FSL report in a case under the NDPS Act does not constitute a complete challan, entitling the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
A challan filed without an FSL report in a case under the NDPS Act is an incomplete challan and does not satisfy the requirement of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., entitling the accused to default bail.
The absence of an FSL report does not invalidate a charge sheet under NDPS Act, affirming the right to default bail remains linked to timely completion of investigations.
Non-filing of the FSL report along with the Charge Sheet did not entitle the Applicant to default bail, as the Charge Sheet, filed within the statutory period, was not incomplete without the FSL repo....
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.