SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 89762

MADRAS HIGH COURT
MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent
CRL RC/1715/2022



An accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. if the final report is not filed within the statutory period of 180 days.

Headnote:

BAIL - STATUTORY BAIL - NDPS ACT - [SECTION 167(2) CR.P.C.] - Petitioner arrested for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act - Statutory bail application filed after 180 days of arrest - Respondent police filed an application under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act for extension of time for filing final report on 179th day - Trial Court refused bail to the petitioner since Extension Petition was pending - Held, the order of the trial court is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside - Petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and was in judicial custody for more than 180 days. The respondent police filed an application under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act for extension of time for filing final report on 179th day. The trial court refused bail to the petitioner since the Extension Petition was pending.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order of the trial court is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State Through B.I, Bombay (II) (1994(5) SCC page 410) which has been re-affirmed by subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rustam, reported in 1995 SCC Crl.830, if an accused filed an application for statutory bail, on the expiry of the period contemplated under the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., and offering him to release him on bail, no charge sheet had been filed by the respondent police, then the accused has to be released on bail and the right conferred upon him under the aforesaid provision of Cr.P.C., must be enforced.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court and directed the petitioner to be released on statutory bail.

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2022

Mohan

...

Petitioner

/vs/

The State represented by,

The Inspector of Police,

P-2, Otteri Police Station,

Chennai.

Crime No.490 of 2022

.. Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5929 of 2022 orderd on

29.11.2022 on the file of the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases at

Chennai and enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.,

in crime no.490 of 2022, pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner

... Mr.Ramesh

For Respondent

... Mr.V.Meganathan,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2022

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.5929 of 2022 in Crime No.490 of 2022 on the file of Special

Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, the present criminal revision case

has been filed.

2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the

respondent police registered a case against the petitioner as the first accused

in Crime No.490 of 2022 for offences under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of

NDPS Act and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from

24.05.2022. As mandated under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, within 180 days,

final report has not been filed. Hence, the petitioner filed statutory bail

application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.5929 of 2022, which was

dismissed on the ground that the respondent police filed a petition on

18.11.2022 under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, for extension of time for

filing final report. It was unsustainable. Hence, seeking to set aside the

impugned order passed by the trial Court and to enlarge the petitioner on bail

under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2022

3. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent

submitted that the respondent police filed an application under Section

36A(4) of NDPS Act, on 18.11.2022. As on date, no order has been passed in

the application for extension of time for filing the final report, but the

petition filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail has been dismissed.

4. On perusal of the records the fact reveals that the petitioner is A1 in

Crime No.490 of 2022. The respondent police registered a case against the

petitioner for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS

Act and he was arrested and remanded on 24.05.2022. The respondent police

seized the contraband of 22 kg ganja, which is of commercial quantity. After

investigation, the respondent police has not filed final report within statutory

period of 180 days. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition under Section

167(2) of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.5929 of 2022 for statutory bail on

21.11.2022. Further, the facts reveals that the respondent police filed a

petition under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, only on 179th day i.e.,

18.11.2022 for extension of time for filing final report. The trial Court

refused to grant bail to the petitioner, since Extension Petition filed by the

respondent police has been pending. Therefore, on the date of deciding bail

application filed by the petitioner, the time for filing final report was not

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2022

extended. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution

Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs.

State Through B.I, Bombay (II) (1994(5) SCC page 410) which has been re-

affirmed by subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Rustam, reported in 1995 SCC Crl.830, if an accused filed an

application for statutory bail, on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top