Non-filing of the FSL report did not render the Charge Sheet incomplete, and the petitioner was not entitled to default bail solely on this ground.

Headnote:
FSL Report - Default Bail - The court dismissed the application for default bail as the Charge Sheet was filed within the statutory timeframe, and the non-filing of the FSL report did not render it incomplete.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought default bail as the Charge Sheet was not accompanied by the FSL report, arguing that it was incomplete and thus entitled to be released on default bail.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Charge Sheet was not incomplete due to the non-filing of the FSL report, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail.
Issues: Whether the Charge Sheet was incomplete due to the non-filing of the FSL report and whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail on this ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the non-filing of the FSL report did not render the Charge Sheet incomplete, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail solely on this ground.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for default bail, holding that the Charge Sheet was not incomplete due to the non-filing of the FSL report.

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 7211-12/2024 (Exemptions)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 312/2024

3. This revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by learned Sessions Court whereby application filed by the Petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking default bail has been dismissed.

4. Issue notice.

5. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, on 10.03.2023, at around 02:30 PM, a secret information was received by the Crime Branch that Baljeet @ CRL.REV.P. 312/2024 Page 2 of 19 Aman, who lives near Indian Modern School, Chattarpur, Delhi will be purchasing MDMA tablets and cocaine from one Nigerian. Raiding team was constituted and Baljeet (Petitioner herein) was apprehended along with the co-accused and a polyethene bag was recovered from the Petitioner having 03 small bags containing cocaine 51 gms.; MDMA 35 gms.; 10 green coloured tablets Ecstasy (MDMA); and 50 pink coloured tablets (MDMA) weighing 26.50 gms. Notice was served on both under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) before conducting the personal search. On 13.03.2023, Beneth Chukuwuudi @ Michael was arrested on the disclosure statement of Petitioner and the co- accused and 03 polythene bags containing contrabands were recovered. FIR was registered and Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2023. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed on 25.08.2023, which was admittedly within 180 days albeit without the FSL report, which was received later.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The contrabands allegedly recovered were planted by the officials of the Crime Branch. Charge Sheet was filed without the FSL report and thus, even if filed within the statutory period of 180 days, as provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, it is an incomplete Charge Sheet and on this ground alone, Petitioner is entitled to be released on default bail. To support this argument, learned counsel places reliance on the orders in Pankaj Gupta v. Narcotics Control Bureau, SLP (Crl.) No. 12200/2023, decided on 04.12.2023; Arif Khan v. State, SLP (Crl.) No. 8610/2023, decided on 28.07.2023; Mohd. Arbaz v. State, SLP (Crl.) No. 8496/2023, decided on 12.07.2023; Divyas CRL.REV.P. 312/2024 Page 3 of 19 Bardewa v. Narcotics Control Bureau, SLP (Crl.) No. 11628/2023, decided on 01.05.2023; Suleman v. State, SLP (Crl.) No. 1929/2023, decided on 27.04.2023; Saurabh Bali v. State, SLP (Crl.) No. 4826/2021, decided on 19.10.2022; and Babu v. State, SLP (Crl.) No. 6518/2020, decided on 05.08.2021, wherein Supreme Court has granted default bails to the accused persons on the ground that the Charge Sheet was not filed along with the FSL report, though it is conceded by the learned counsel that question of law whether a Charge Sheet filed without FSL report is incomplete, is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

8. Learned counsel urges that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking default bail on account of non-filing of FSL report, overlooking several orders passed by the Supreme Court granting default bail only on this ground and has chosen to rely on the orders passed by this Court, to dismiss the application. It is argued that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken a view that the only way nature of a contraband can be established is through a chemical examiner’s report and therefore, this report assumes immense significance for the Trial Court to formulate an opinion, as the very cognizance of an offence would depend on it. Non-inclusion of the FSL opinion in a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document