A Charge-Sheet filed without a Chemical Analysis Report can be deemed valid, shifting the bail determination to merits rather than procedural deficiencies once filed within statutory limits.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Order of the Learned Special Judge, SADA, 2006, Gangtok, Sikkim, dated 01-10-2022, in Criminal Misc. Case (SADA) Bail No.113 of 2022 (Anwar Alam v. State of Sikkim), is being assailed, whereby, the Petitioner's prayer for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, 'Cr.P.C.') was rejected.

2. On 31-05-2022, an FIR was lodged before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangtok District, Sikkim, by the Station House Officer (SHO), Pakyong Police Station, Sikkim, informing that, credible source information was received that, the Petitioner, was in possession of controlled substances in his rented room at Pakyong. The SHO along with duty personnel and two independent witnesses conducted a search therein, where the Petitioner and one Amal Sarkar were present. The search led to recovery of twenty-one bottles of cough syrup (Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup) and five empty bottles of cough syrup (Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup/Cetrizine HCL Dextromethorphan HBR and Phenylephrine HCL Syrup). The Petitioner was arrested on 31-05-2022 under Section 7 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs (Amendment) Act, 2017 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and taken into custody. Amal Sarkar later was released in terms of Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. The Final Report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on 27- 07-2022, sans the Chemical Analysis Report, although the Prosecution had forwarded the recovered articles to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Government of India, Kamrup, Assam, on 18-07-2022.

3. The Appellant filed an application seeking default bail [Criminal Misc. Case (SADA) Bail No.113 of 2022] before the Special Court, SADA, 2006, Gangtok, Sikkim, under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., on the anvil of the contention that an incomplete Charge-Sheet was filed, which was rejected by the Court, relying on various decisions of the Delhi High Court, hence this Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the Prosecution having failed to submit the complete Charge-Sheet inclusive of FSL Report within the statutory period of 60 days, from the date of arrest of the Petitioner. That, the Charge-Sheet filed on 27-07-2022 lacked the FSL Report. That, consequently in the absence of the FSL Report it is unverified as to whether the Petitioner can even be booked under the provisions of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (as amended) [hereinafter, 'SADA, 2006'] the contents of the seized articles not having been established as controlled substances. Claiming parity with Amal Sarkar who was released by the Police, it is urged that both of them were present at the time of search and seizure, but the Petitioner without evidence, was forwarded to Judicial custody. Relying on the ratio in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer , Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453, it was urged that the personal liberty is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law, in conformity with the provisions thereof. That, in Satya Narain Musadi and Others v. State of Bihar (1980) 3 SCC 152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 173 (5) of the Cr.P.C. makes its obligatory upon the Police Officer to forward along with the report all documents or r