Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 11368
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Malasri Nandi, J
ADRISH KHAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Bail Appln. / 962 / 2024
MR. K N CHOUDHURY, SC, NCB
Timely filing of a charge sheet negates the right to default bail, even if the FSL report is pending.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)
(C), 25, 28, 29, 35, 54 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) and 173(8) - Application for bail on grounds of incomplete charge sheet due to absence of FSL report - The court held that filing of a charge sheet within the prescribed time limits negates the right to default bail, even if the FSL report is pending - The prosecution's submission of the charge sheet without the FSL report does not invalidate it, as the court takes cognizance of the offence, not the offender. (Paras 12-25)
(B) The court emphasized that additional documents can be produced post-charge sheet submission and that the investigation can continue under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. (Paras 20-23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arrested in an NDPS case, sought bail claiming the charge sheet was incomplete as it lacked the FSL report. The petitioner was not present at the time of the contraband seizure and was implicated based on a statement from another accused.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the charge sheet was valid despite the absence of the FSL report, affirming that the petitioner was not entitled to default bail.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to bail based on the argument of an incomplete charge sheet due to the absence of the FSL report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the timely filing of the charge sheet extinguishes the right to default bail, regardless of the absence of supporting documents.
Result: Bail application rejected.
Date : 14.05.2024 Heard Ms. A. Mandla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, NCB. Page No.# 1/20 GAHC010056212024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./962/2024 ADRISH KHAN SON OF MUNSHI KHAN R/O GALI NO. 8, WARD NO. 9, KAYAMKHANI MOHALLA JASWANTGADH, TEHSIL LADNUN, DISTRICT- NAGAUR, RAJASTHAN-
VERSUS UNION OF INDIA NARCOTICS DRUGS BUREAU, THROUGH, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (NEW DESIGNATION -INSPECTOR), VIP ROAD, RUOKONWAR PATH CHACHAL, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781022 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 14.05.2024 Heard Ms. A. Mandla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, NCB. Page No.# 2/20 2. This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the petitioner, namely, Adrish Khan, in connection with NDPS Case No. 193/2023(NCB Guwahati Crime No.09/2023) registered under Section 8(c)/20(b)/(ii)(C)/25/28/29/35/54 of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge(NDPS), Guwahati.
3. The factual matrix leading to this case is that on 20/09/2023 at about 4:00 PM, the NCB officials received an information from a reliable source that one person namely, Parma Ram Bishnoi, resident of Rajasthan, is trafficking huge quantity of ganja from Agartala, Tripura to West Bengal in a truck bearing registration no. RJ11GA6154. Accordingly, the said truck was intercepted by the NCB team. On being searched, flowering top of Cannabis (ganja) in compressed form was found. Small amount of ganja was tested with drug detection kit available with the team. It gave positive test for ganja and accordingly the alleged contraband were seized. Total weight was found to be 2126.660 Kg. On being asked the person found in the vehicle i.e., Parma Ram Bishnoi, admitted that he was consciously involved in the trafficking of ganja for monetary benefits. Thereafter, he was arrested.
4. Subsequently, the present petitioner who is the owner of the said truck was arrested by NCB on 01/11/2023.
5. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR, as he was not present on the spot, when the contraband was seized from the accused no. 1, Parma Ram Bishnoi. The petitioner was only named in the charge-sheet on the basis of the statement given by one Liyakat Ali u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, registered owner of the truck Page No.# 3/20 who alleged that he sold the said truck to the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecution in the present case filed charge-sheet on 23/11/2023 without FSL report and hence, it is incomplete.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of incomplete charge sheet, the trial court took cognizance of the case and charge was also framed. The prosecution has submitted some additional documents which are without the compliance of statutory provision of seeking permission from the court to extend the time period of completion of investigation based on the report of the public prosecutor and the same cannot be carried out by nearly adverting to a prayer for the same in the charge sheet.
Moreover, a supplementary charge sheet u/s 173(8) of Cr.P.C. can only be filed in the event of any novel evidence or information procured.
7. After framing of charge against the present petitioner and the co-accused, on 15/02/2024 the prosecution filed additional documents containing the FSL report. But there is no cognizance or acceptance of the said documents till filing of the this bail application. It is further submitted that there has been a statutory lapse in the present case.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on the strength of the FSL/examiner report, the court can ascertain that whether the alleged seized substance was narcoti
