Rajpal @ Billu vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1131

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Rajpal @ Billu - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRR-1850 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate and Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Asst. A.G., Haryana.

Headnote:
default bail - NDPS Act - Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. - An accused gets an indefeasible right to the grant of bail on account of the default by the Investigating Agency in not presenting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the stipulated period. The court held that the grant of extension of 90 days in presentation of the challan itself is bad in the eyes of law, and the further detention of the petitioners would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as the period for the presentation of challan was extended by 90 days. The application was dismissed, but the petitioner argued that the extension order had been set aside by the Court in a previous case.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the extension of 90 days in presentation of the challan was bad in the eyes of the law, and the further detention of the petitioner would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to the extension of the period for the presentation of the challan.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an accused gets an indefeasible right to the grant of bail on account of the default by the Investigating Agency in not presenting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the stipulated period. The grant of extension of 90 days in presentation of the challan itself is bad in the eyes of the law.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby the application for grant of default regular bail preferred by the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.92 dated 13.02.2022 registered under Sections 20, 25 of the NDPS, 1985 at Police Station Gannaur, Sonepat has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty, secret information was received that Mani Ram son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh and Vishal son of Hoshiar Singh were moving around in the village carrying a heavy quantity of charas with them in a black coloured Tata Harrier car and if barricading was done on the road from Panchi Jattan to Rajpur, the three accused could be apprehended along with the vehicle and narcotics. Based on the information, a report was prepared and sent to the Police Station Ganaur in this regard. Meanwhile, the police party started checking vehicles and after some time the car in question was seen coming from the side of Panchi Jattan. It was stopped. Two boys alighted from the vehicle. One young boy was sitting on the driver seat and one boy ran away from the spot. The arrested boys disclosed their names as Mani Ram son of Rajender and the driver as Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh. The boy who ran away was Vishal. Thereafter, the recovery of 1 kg 800gms of charas came to be effected from the dash board of the vehicle. The copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.

3. As the petitioner came to be arrested on 13.02.2022, the period of 180 days to present the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was to be completed on 11.08.2022. Therefore, an application was moved by the Investigating Officer seeking extension of time for presentation of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The copy of the order dated 02.08.2022 whereby extension for presentation of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 30.08.2022. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2022. The copy of the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

The order passed on application (Annexure P-4) is impugned in the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of default bail had been declined only on account of the fact that the period for the presentation of challan was extended by 90 days, the petitioner was now entitled to the grant of default bail as the said order extending the period for the presentation of challan by 90 days has been set aside by this Court in CRR-1907-2022, decided on 16.05.2023.

6. The learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that as the order granting extension for presentation of challan has been set aside, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law. The same are enumerated hereinbelow:-

Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, reads as under:-

[36A. Offences triable by Special Courts.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—-

(a) all offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government;

(b) where a person accused