CRL.REV. 351/2022

Page 1 of 21

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 29.07.2022

Pronounced on: 03.08.2022

+

CRL.REV. 351/2022

SULEMAN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Nitin Bansal and Mr.

Kundan Kumar, Advocates

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for State with ASI

Rajveer, P.S.Narela Industrial

Area

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

INDEX

S. No.

Particulars

Pages

1. Facts of the Case

2 - 4

2. Submissions of Learned Counsels

4

3.

Default Bail Under Section 167

4 - 18

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002933

CRL.REV. 351/2022

Page 2 of 21

(i)

Objective

4 - 9

(ii)

Law

9 - 18

4.

FSL Report not part of the Charge

Sheet

18 - 21

5. Conclusion

21

1.

The present Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the

order dated 05.05.2022, passed by the Learned Trial Court, North

District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, wherein Default Bail of the Petitioner,

under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Trial

Court.

Facts of the Case

2.

The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:

a)The Petitioner is in custody in case FIR no. 96/2021 under

Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter “NDPS Act”) registered at

P.S. Narela Industrial Area. On completion of the investigation,

the charge sheet was filed on 03.03.2021 without the Forensic

Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The charge sheet already filed

mentioned that the supplementary charge sheet would be filed

on the receipt of the report from forensic laboratory. The

Petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2021, wherein he was found in

possession of 300 gms of Heroine and 06 gms of heroine was

recovered from the co-accused.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002933

CRL.REV. 351/2022

Page 3 of 21

b)The Petitioner filed an application for bail in default under

Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court,

claiming that the complete charge sheet was not filed within the

stipulated time frame under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act.

The learned Trial Court observed that the accused would not be

entitled to Default Bail as the charge sheet has been filed even

though the FSL Report is not filed. In furtherance, it was

observed by the learned Trial Court that the quantity recovered

from the Petition would fall under the bar of commercial

quantity. Thus, the onus would be upon the Petitioner to satisfy

the learned Trial Court. The observations made read as under:-

“…The plea of default bail as the charge-sheet has been

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002933

CRL.REV. 351/2022

Page 4 of 21

accused/applicant stands dismissed…”

Submissions of Learned Counsels

3.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the

charge sheet is incomplete without FSL Report, since the IO does not

know whether the substance recovered is actually a banned substance

under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the APP for State states that the question of

whether the charge sheet is incomplete without FSL Report or not, is

yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore the

reliance should be placed on the law presently laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal vs State 1989 SCC

OnLine Del 348and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Babu vs

The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) BAIL APPLN.2075/2020and

Mohd. Arbaz vs State of NCT of Delhi CRL. REV. P.1219/2019.

The cases above mentioned have held that the FSL Report shall not

form part of the charge sheet and hence, the plea for grant of bail in

default was dismissed.

Default Bail under Section 167

(i) Objective

5.

The procedure for application of Default bail finds