O R D E R

Dated this the 22nd day of April 2021 Successive application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant is the accused in Crime No.521/2019 of Panniyankara Police station, Kozhikkode for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short). The investigation is over and the final report has already been filed and taken on file of the Court of the Special Judge for NDPS case, Vadakara as S.C. 41/2020.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07/12/2019 at about 11:40 AM, the Police officers apprehended the accused near the goods shed yard of the Kallai Railway Station under suspicious circumstances, and on search he was found to be in possession of 2830 capsules weighing 1750 grams of Spasmo Proxyvon containing Tramadol, a commercial quantity of a psychotropic substance, violating the provisions of the NDPS Act. He was remanded consequent to his arrest and continues in judicial custody. The applicant had filed an application for statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act as Crl. M.P No.275/2020 before the Designated Court and the same was dismissed vide Annexure-2 Order. The final report in an NDPS case has to be filed within the statutory period of 180 days. There is no dispute that the final report in the instant case was filed on

16/03/2020 as evident from Annexure-1. The applicant would contend that the final report which was filed on time by the investigating officer, was returned for the reason that the copy of the drug disposal committee was not attached. subsequently, it was filed only after the expiry of the statutory period and hence the applicant ought to have been given the benefit of mandatory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The applicant states that the Apex Court has in Achpal@ Ramswaroop & Ano v. State of Rajasthan, [AIR 2018 Sc 4647:2018 KHC 6714] held that when a charge filed before the court within the statutory time under Section 167(2) CrP.C is returned due to technical defects, it cannot be said charge sheet is filed, and that the accused is entitled for statutory bail after expiry of ninety days if no charge sheet is filed within that period. The applicant also relies on the decisions in Udhay Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [2001 (5) SCC 453] and M. Raveendran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [Crl.Appeal No. 699 of 2020] to submit that the accused may be released on bail.

4. Heard Shri P.V. Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Santhosh Peter, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Records perused.

5. The applicant had raised all these contentions earlier and this court had vide Order dated 21-10-2020 found that there were no reasons to hold that the final report was not filed within time. The copy of the Drug Disposal Committee was not seen handed over to the accused. Hence, the prosecution was directed by the jurisdictional court to cure that defect. This Court had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R. S. Pai and Another, [2002 (2) KLT 149 (SC) : 2002 (5) SCC 82] ,and the decision of this Court in Shino Paul and Others v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KLT 339], wherein it was held that if a mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge - sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the Court. In the case on hand, the charge - sheet was returned as defective. It implies permission to cure the defects. The defects were cured and the charge-sheet was re-presented. It cannot be said that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.PC would get attracted, and the accused to get default bail if the charge - sheet is re-presented, after curing the defects, beyond the period in the s