Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
VIMAL K MOHANAN
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent
Crl.MC 9523 2022
Bail - NDPS Act, CrPC - Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A, 29, 167 - The court examined whether the failure to file a non-defective final report within the statutory period affects the right to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, concluding that minor defects do not invalidate the completed investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, charged under the NDPS Act for conspiracy and possession of drugs, sought bail after the police failed to complete the investigation within the 180 days statutory limit. The investigator submitted a final report but it was returned for corrections after the limit expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the final report, filed within the statutory timeframe, completed the investigation despite some minor defects. It concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to default bail as the report indicated completion of the investigation.
Issues: Whether a defective final report after the 180-day limit impacts the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Completion of investigation is essential for default bail under Section 167(2); minor defects in a final report do not negate this requirement if the investigation itself is deemed complete.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2023 The petitioners are accused Nos.6 and 7 in Crime No.1915 of 2021 of Perumbavur Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act . The crime was registered on the allegation that the accused conspired together and secured possession of 30.200 kg of Ganja by sending the contraband through courier from Andhra Pradesh. The first and second accused were caught while receiving the courier. Based on their statement, the petitioners were implicated and arrested on 18.03.2022. As the investigation was not completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days, the petitioners moved an application for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Pending that application, the investigation was completed and the final report filed on 12.09.2022, the 179th day. Thereupon, the petitioners' application for bail was rejected as per Annexure II order. Aggrieved, this Crl.M.C is filed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the final report filed on 12.09.2022 was defective and was kept pending in the Special Court for verification up to 09.11.2022. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had filed an application on 04.11.2022 for obtaining certified copy of the final report. That application was returned on 15.11.2022 stating that the final report is not available in court. Therefore, as on the 180th day only a defective final report was on record, which is not sufficient to curtail the petitioners' right to be enlarged on bail on the 181st day. It was only upon receiving the copy application that the Sessions Judge got alerted about the pendency of the final report without verification. Immediately, the final report was verified and finding it to be defective an order was passed on 09.11.2022, directing the investigating officer to cure the defects and re-submit the final report within 15 days. Accordingly, the investigating officer took back the final report on 14.11.2022 and, after rectifying the defects, re-submitted it on 18.11.2022.
3. It is argued that, unless a proper final report is filed in court, after completing investigation, the requirement of Section 167 (2) of the Code will not be satisfied. A truncated or defective report cannot result in the accused’s valuable right to bail being defeated. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision inAchpal @ Ramswaroop and another v State of Rajasthan [ (2019) 14 SCC 599 ].
Attention is also drawn to Annexure III Circular of the State Police Chief, highlighting the relevancy of filing time bound and defect free final reports for preventing grant of default bail to the accused.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, inasmuch as the final report was filed before 180 days of petitioners' custody, their right to default bail is lost. The investigating officer's duty is to complete the investigation and file the final report within the statutory time limit. Delay in verification of the final report within the statutory time limit cannot result in default bail being granted to the accused.
5. From the arguments advanced the question arising for consideration is whether, in cases where final report is filed within the statutory time limit of 180 days, the accused’s entitlement for bail under Section 167 (2) would subsist, if the charge sheet is found to contain defects and returned for curing the defects after the statutory time limit is over. For answering this question, it is essential to read the relevant portion of Section 167 Cr.P.C extracted below;
“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.—
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
