Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J
Navinkumar Pandu Jatot – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Bail Application No. 301 of 2020|Bail Application No. 3505 of 2019|Bail Application No. 3506 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Aniket Nikam, Mr. Vivek N. Arote, Mr. Vishal Rankhambe, Mr. J. K. Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. R. M. Pethe
A charge-sheet under NDPS Act is complete for prosecution purposes even in absence of a Chemical Analyzer report, affirming that the absence of such report does not entitle the accused to default bail.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b) and 22 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Application for bail - Charge-sheet filed without Chemical Analyzer (CA) report does not render it incomplete under Section 173(2) - Report on recovery of Ganja based on smell is deemed sufficient for prosecution despite absence of field tests - Right to default bail not upheld in absence of incompleteness of charge-sheet. (Paras 10, 11, 30, 37)
(B) Principles of Law: The absence of a CA report does not automatically mean a charge-sheet is incomplete, provided it contains all necessary details as per Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. - The investigating officer's satisfaction regarding the nature of seized contraband can be deemed sufficient for the court to take cognizance of the offence. (Paras 12, 37)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought bail for offences under NDPS Act related to Ganja seized from their vehicle without a CA report accompanying the charge-sheet, claiming it rendered the charge-sheet incomplete. Investigating officers reported their belief based on smell without conducting a field test.
Findings of Court:
The charge-sheet filed within stipulated time was deemed complete despite absence of a CA report; the court can rely on the statements and circumstances reported to take cognizance of the offences.
Issues: The legal standing of a charge-sheet lacking a CA report in NDPS offences and whether default bail applies if an incomplete charge-sheet is submitted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that charges under NDPS do not depend solely on a CA report and that sufficient basis existed for the prosecution's case, thus rejecting the bail applications.
Result: Bail Application Nos. 301 of 2020, 3505 of 2019 and 3506 of 2019, are rejected and stand disposed of accordingly.
ORDER :
1 The applicants in all these applications are seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 528 of 2019 registered with Baramati Taluka Police Station, Pune on 19th June, 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).
2 The case of the prosecution is as follows :- The First Information Report (for short “FIR”) is lodged by Sachin Babanrao Patre, Police Sub Inspector, attached to Baramati Taluka Police Station, Pune Rural. On 19th June, 2019 at about 1.45 a.m. the complainant and others were discharging their duty of Nakabandi at Bhigwan Road Toll Naka. At that time they noticed Maruti Suzuki Ertiga Car proceeding from Baramati to Bhigwan. 5 persons were sitting in the car. They were stopped. The inmates of the car disclosed their names as Naveenkumar Pandu Jatu, Kishan Naik, Rakesh Lawati, Umesh Gaikwad and Anil Gaikwad. On suspecting their movements, search of car was conducted. Below the rear seat of the car 20 boxes were found lying. On opening the said boxes it was noticed that boxes were containing green leaves, sticks, seeds bearing strong smell. The police party felt that it was Ganja and hence inquiry was made with persons sitting in the car. They gave evasive answers and did not disclose any information. It was decided to initiate action under the NDPS Act. Information was given to Sub Divisional Police Officer and obtaining written permission from him. The panch witnesses, photographer were summoned at the place of incident. Personal search of the persons in the car was conducted. Inquiry was made with the said persons. They were informed about purpose of search. They were also appraised about the fact that search can be conducted in the presence of any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate which was declined by them. 20 boxes found in the car were containing the leaves, sticks, seeds having strong smell and it was confirmed that the contents of the boxes were Ganja. The contraband was seized. The weight of the contraband was 42.642 Kgm. Net weight of Ganja 41.100 Kgm. and the value was Rs.5,82,200/-. The samples were obtained and the contraband was seized and sealed. The accused were arrested on 19th June, 2019. They were remanded to custody.
3 The applicants preferred applications for bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. on 5th December, 2019, on the ground that charge–sheet is filed without C.A. report. It is incomplete charge–sheet and the appellants are entitled to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. The applications were rejected by order dated 05th December, 2019.
4 The common grounds urged by the applicants in all these applications are as follows :-
(a) The applicants are entitled for bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act.
(b) The Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet before the trial Court without the report of Chemical Analyzer (for short “CA”). The accused are charged for offences under the NDPS Act. The CA report determines whether the contraband is Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Drugs. Charge-sheet filed sans CA report is incomplete charge-sheet.
(c) Field test was not conducted in the present case to determine prima facie that the contraband seized from the accused was covered under the provisions of NDPS Act.
(d) The Investigating agency filed charge–sheet without C.A. report. Since the C.A. report was not available, it was open for investigation agency to seek extension of time to complete investigation on expiry of period of 180 ays in accordance with Section 36 A (4) of N.D.P.S. Act.
(e) The Special Court under the NDPS Act has wrongly rejected the application for bail by ignoring the statutory right of the accused under the aforesaid provisions.
5 Learned Advocate Mr. Nikam submitted that field test was not conducted in the present case. While filing charge- sheet there was no cogent material on record to determine that the contraband seized i
