IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Pardeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 733 of 2024
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Bail - Default Bail - NDPS Act, 1985, Section 36-A(4), Cr.P.C. Section 167(2) - The court emphasized the right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. when the investigation is not completed within the stipulated time, highlighting the necessity of a public prosecutor's report for extending detention beyond 180 days.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought default bail after the investigation into an FIR under the NDPS Act was not completed within 180 days. The trial court had allowed an extension for the investigation, which the petitioner challenged, claiming an indefeasible right to bail due to the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extension of detention lacked the necessary public prosecutor's report, violating Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. It ruled that the petitioner was entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed time.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to the failure of the prosecution to complete the investigation within the stipulated period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to default bail is absolute under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. if the investigation is not completed within the specified time, and any extension requires a proper report from the public prosecutor.
Result: The order denying default bail was set aside, and the petitioner was granted default bail.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. while seeking two reliefs in the common petition i.e. for setting aside order dated 26.02.2024 whereby the application under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act, 1985 for extension of time to file the challan has been allowed and the order dated 27.02.2024 vide which default bail sought by the petitioner has been declined in case FIR No. 0584, dated 30.08.2023, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City Palwal.
2. Since, the orders challenged before this Court by way of a common revision petition are passed on different dates on different cause of action, Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner confines his prayer to the order dated 27.02.2024 and prays for default bail while withdrawing his petition qua the challenge to order dated 26.02.2024 with liberty to challenge the same by separate revision petition.
3. The prayer is accepted in the interest of justice and this Court would proceed further to adjudicate on the revision petition on the prayer as to whether petitioner is entitled to the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The facts culminated into the FIR could be read as narrated therein which is reproduced hereinbelow:
Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel & another v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi
Sanjay Kumar Kedia Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is absolute if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated time, necessitating a public prosecutor's report for any extension.
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is absolute and must be granted if the prosecution fails to file a challan within the stipulated time, as per Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
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.
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.