Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 549
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL, J
Udaybhan Dahiya – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 900/2024
Sandeep Kumar Jain,Advocate General
The absence of an FSL report does not render a charge sheet incomplete if filed within the statutory time limit, thus default bail under Section 167(2) is not automatically granted.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 167(2), 397, 401 - NDPS Act - Default bail - Application for default bail dismissed due to incomplete charge sheet lacking FSL report - Applicants arrested for possession of contraband - Court held that non-filing of FSL report does not invalidate charge sheet filed within statutory time limit. (Paras 1, 2, 11, 12)
(B) Right to Bail - The right to default bail under Section 167(2) is not automatic if the charge sheet is filed within the statutory period, even if it lacks certain documents like the FSL report. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Applicants were arrested on 12.01.2023 for possessing 180 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate. They sought default bail claiming the charge sheet was incomplete without the FSL report. The trial court dismissed their application.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charge sheet was filed within the statutory time limit and the absence of the FSL report did not entitle the applicants to default bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the absence of the FSL report rendered the charge sheet incomplete, thus entitling the applicants to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the charge sheet filed within the statutory period is valid, and the absence of the FSL report does not automatically grant the right to default bail. The statutory provisions are directory, not mandatory.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. default bail claim (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition to bail (Para 4) |
| 3. court's analysis (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. validity of charge sheet (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 /401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed assailing the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Umaria (M.P.) in Special Case No.07/2023 (State of M.P. Vs. Ravi Dahiya and others) whereby applicants’ application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking default bail on the ground that incomplete charge sheet has been filed as it was filed without FSL report, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.
2. It is averred in the petition that applicants were arrested on 12.01.2023 in connection with alleged recovery of 180 Rexous Plus cough syrup bottles having codeine phosphate from the possession of applicants. In this revision petition, the singular and pivotal question raised by learned counsel for the applicants is that while filing the charge sheet, the prosecution could not file a report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) regarding the substance recovered from the applicants, thus the applicants became entitled to get the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. but the learned Magistrate without abiding with the provisions of law, dismissed their application. Therefore, he has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge.
3. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that 180 Rexous Plus cough syrup bottles having codeine phosphate were seized from the possession of the present applicant. Thus, complete challan should have been filed within period of 180 days. The challan was filed within the aforesaid time but in view of bail order dated 16.02.2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bablu Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.631/2024, the applicants are entitled to get the benefit of default bail. Shri Jain argued that FSL report regarding the nature of substance is integral part of charge sheet and it should have been filed with the charge sheet itself. Since it is not filed within the stipulated period, the applicants deserve the default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed grant of default bail and has submitted that learned trial Court has not committed any error. It is submitted that contraband cough syrup was seized from the possession of the present applicants on 12.01.2023. The seized quantity was more than the required commercial quantity. Charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court well within time, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing bail application of the applicant under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. In the case of Bablu Singh (supra), which is a bail order, Hon'ble Apex Court has granted interim bail on the ground that case was registered on 11.09.2020, charge sheet was filed on 07.03.2021 and charges were framed on 16.10.2021 and in a period of about three years and five months, not even a single witness has been examined and in that case, counsel for the State had admitted before the Apex Court that FSL report has not been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court had granted interim bail. In bail order, no law has been laid down with regard to the fact that if FSL report was not filed with the charge sheet, same shall be treated as incomplete charge sheet and applicant shall be entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. On the contrary, it is well known that the question with regard to the law that if charge sheet is filed without the FSL report, whether it would be incomplete charge sheet?, is pending for adjudication.
