Bablu Ram @ Babblu Ram vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Bablu Ram @ Babblu Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRR No.1210 of 2021
Decided On : 20-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.S.Waraich
For the Respondent: Mr.Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 36-A(4) - Default bail application dismissed as prosecution moved for extension of time to file challan on the 180th day - Petitioner's earlier application for default bail at 10 A.M. on the same day acknowledged by court - Extension quashed due to lack of justification - Right to default bail established. (Paras 3-9)

(B) Fundamental Rights - The right to default bail is indefeasible and triggered by non-compliance of time limits by the prosecution, reaffirmed by previous judgments. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arrested for drug-related charges, filed for default bail under Section 167(2) due to the prosecution's failure to submit a challan within 180 days, ironically on the same day the prosecution submitted a late application for an extension of time.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Special Court's extension of time granted for filing the challan, affirming that the petitioner’s right to default bail should be honored as the prosecution did not comply legally.

Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the challan justified the denial of default bail to the petitioner despite timely application filing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right to default bail as essential and reiterated that procedural delays should not infringe upon this right as established by prior case law.

Result: Impugned order set aside; petitioner granted default bail.

Table of Content
1. presentation of case and application details (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against default bail application (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observations and reasoning for default bail (Para 6 , 7)
4. legal basis for default bail under ndps act (Para 8)
5. decision to grant default bail to the petitioner (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby, an application filed at the instance of the petitioner, invoking Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking default bail has been dismissed.

2. In the present case, the petitioner was implicated as an accused in FIR No.42 dated 27.02.2021 under Section 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act, Police Station City-2, Khanna, wherein, he was arrested on the same day i.e. 27.02.2021. The prosecution having failed to submit challan within the period of 180 days moved an application for seeking extension of time before the Court concerned invoking Sub-Section 4 to Section 36 -A of the NDPS Act, 1985. The application was filed by the prosecution on 26.08.2021 i.e. on 180th day followed by an application dated 27.08.2021 moved at the instance of present petitioner invoking Section 167(2) Cr.PC. seeking default bail on the ground of non-filing of challan by the prosecution within the prescribed period of 180 days. Admittedly, the aforesaid application was moved at the instance of present petitioner at 10 A.M., in the morning on 27.08.2021, whereas, the prosecution filed its challan before the Special Court on the same day at 10.20 A.M.

3. The trial Court vide its order dated 27.08.2021, dismissed the prayer made at the instance of present petitioner for granting him default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on the ground that application for seeking extension of time moved at the instance of prosecution stood allowed on the same day i.e. on 27.08.2021 by the Judge, Special Court in exercise of powers under Section 36 -A(4) of the NDPS Act.

4. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed at the instance of the petitioner, invoking Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., for grant of default bail was moved at his instance on 27.08.2021 at 10 A.M. in the morning whereas, the challan was filed thereafter at around 10:20 A.M. and the application for seeking extension of time for the purpose of filing of challan was allowed later in the day. He further submits that even an order dated 27.08.2021, passed at the instance of Special Court exercising powers under sub-Section 4 to Section 36A of the NDPS Act already stands quashed vide order dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court in CRR No.368 of 2021.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made herein while submitting that the present case is of heavy recovery and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of default bail. Learned State counsel, however, has not been able to dispute the fact that the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was filed at the instance of the petitioner before the Special Court on 27.08.2021 at 10 A.M., before the filing of challan by the prosecution on the same day at 10.20 A.M.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Right of default bail under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 is regulated by Sub-Section 4 to Section 36A of the NDPS Act, the same been relevant for consideration of the case in hand, is reproduced hereunder:

"(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days": Provide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document