High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, J.
KHILAN SINGH s/o KODU SINGH – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
M. Cr. C. No. 35379 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
DEFAULT BAIL - NDPS Act - 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985, 130, 177(3) Motor Vehicles Act - The court discussed the interpretation of section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the requirement of filing the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) regarding the substance recovered within the statutory time limit. The court examined conflicting judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, ultimately concluding that the non-filing of FSL report with the challan does not vitiate the challan or entitle the applicant to default bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in connection with offences under section 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985 and section 130, 177(3) Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant argued that the prosecution's failure to file the FSL report regarding the substance recovered entitled him to default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed conflicting judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the requirement of filing the FSL report. The court ultimately concluded that the non-filing of FSL report with the challan does not entitle the applicant to default bail.
Issues: The pivotal question raised was whether the non-filing of the FSL report entitled the applicant to default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions and conflicting judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, ultimately concluding that the non-filing of FSL report with the challan does not vitiate the challan or entitle the applicant to default bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the court held that no case was made out for the grant of default/mandatory bail to the applicant.
ORDER : – This is second bail application filed under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail on behalf of applicant-Khilan Singh in connection with Crime No. 283/2022, registered at Police Station-Nohata, District Damoh (M. P.) for offences under section 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985 and section 130, 177(3) Motor Vehicles Act. His first bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 24354/2022) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9-6-2022.
2. In this application, the singular and pivotal question raised by applicant is that while filing the challan, the prosecution could not file the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) regarding the substance recovered from the applicant, thus the applicant became entitled to get the benefit of default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. To elaborate, Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the medium quantity of opium (3 kg 580 gm) was allegedly recovered from the applicant. The maximum sentence in the event of conviction in a case of this nature is 10 years. Thus, complete challan should have been filed within 60 days. The challan has not been filed within aforesaid time and therefore, in view of orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revisions No. 4659/2015, Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and another vs. State of Punjab decided on 30-11-2018 and CRM-M-25600-2021, State of Haryana vs. Dildar Ram @ Dari decided on 15-7-2021, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of default bail. Shri Jain urged that FSL report regarding the nature of substance is inseparable part of the challan. Since it is not filed within the statutory time limit, the applicant deserves default bail. This is an enforceable right which applicant deserve to enjoy.
4. Sounding a contra note, Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned G. A. opposed the same and prayed for rejection of the bail application.
5. No other point is pressed by the parties.
6. I have heard the parties at length.
7. No doubt, in the case of Ajit Singh and Dildarram (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted benefit of default bail on the ground that the chemical examiner’s report is an essential, integral and inherent part of investigation under the NDPS Act. It is like the foundation of an accused’s culpability without which a Magistrate would not be able to form an opinion and take cognizance of accused’s involvement in the commission of crime under the said Act.
8. The argument based on the said two judgments on the first blush appears to be attractive but lost its complete shine when examined in the teeth of relevant statutory provisions and judgments delivered by various other High Courts.
9. The Rajasthan High Court considered the similar aspect and considered the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manmohan Singh @ Goldi. The Rajasthan High Court in Gaurav vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 SCC Online Rajasthan 3865 opined as under :
“8. When the Hon’ble Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was considering the case of Manmohan Singh @ Goldi he was not made aware of the earlier Full Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Mehal Singh’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as below : –
“15. Since a report to qualify itself to be a ‘police report’ is required to contain only such facts as are mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 173, so if once it is found that the police report contained all those facts, then so far as the investigation is concerned the name has to be considered to have been completed. For this view, we receive authoritative backing from the decision of the Supreme Court in Tara Singh vs. State, AIR 1951 SC 441. That was a case in which the accused was arrested on September 30, on the very day of occurrence, he was produced before a Magistrate. On October 1, the police was granted police remand till October 2. The accused was produced on October 3 before the Magi
The non-filing of FSL report with the challan does not vitiate the challan or entitle the applicant to default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
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.
The absence of an FSL report does not render a chargesheet incomplete; the right to default bail ceases once a chargesheet is filed, regardless of pending investigations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge sheet can be considered complete even without the FSL report, and the accused may not be entitled to default bail.
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....
Non-filing of the FSL report along with the charge sheet does not render the charge sheet incomplete, and therefore, no right of default bail is accrued in favor of the accused.
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.
A police report under Section 173(2) is not incomplete solely for lacking an FSL report if filed within the stipulated time, thus default bail cannot be claimed.
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.