S.No.270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRR No.474 of 2021

Date of Decision:06.04.2022

Laddu

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:-

Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate and

Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J.

Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated

01.04.2021 whereby the bail application of the petitioner under Section

167(2) Cr.P.C for enlarging the petitioner on default bail on account of the

fact that the report of FSL has not been filed by the Police with the challan,

has been declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, the petitioner was arrested on 12.09.2020 and the challan in

the present case was presented on 24.01.2021 and the said challan did not

contain the FSL report. It is further submitted that after the expiry of period

of 180 days, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 167 (2)

Cr.P.C. on 26.03.2021. It is argued that no application for extension of time

to complete the investigation was filed by the prosecution in terms of

Section 36(4) of the NDPS Act. It is contended that even till date, the said

FSL report has not been submitted.

RENU

2022.04.08 17:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.474 of 2021

-2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the

Division Bench judgment of this Court in CRR No. 4659 of 2015 titled as

<Ajit singh @ Jeeta and anoher Vs. State of Punjab= to contend that in

such a situation the petitioner deserves the concession of default bail. It is

also contended that in view of the conflict of opinion on the said point, the

matter was referred to a Division Bench and has further relied upon a

judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed in CRR No. 1135 of 2020 titled as

<Suresh Vs. State of Haryana= in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court,

after considering the entire aspect, was pleased to release the

petitioner/accused therein on conditional bail with the clarification that in

case the legal point is held against the petitioner/accused therein, the State

would be at liberty to seek cancellation/ modification of the order, if

warranted at that stage. It is contended that in the impugned order, the said

important aspects have not been considered and thus, the impugned order

dated 24.05.2021 deserves to be set aside.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition and has submitted that there is a plethora of judgments,

which support the proposition that once the challan has been presented even

without the FSL report, then also, default bail cannot be granted.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paperbook.

The relevant portion of the judgment in Suresh's case (supra)

passed by a Coordinate Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:

2. Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. Additional Sessions

Judge, Fatehabad had dismissed the Petitioner's Application

RENU

2022.04.08 17:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.474 of 2021

-3-

for Bail under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act read with Section

167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

xxx--xxx--xxx

4. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid decision of the

Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (supra) was

passed in view of a question sent up for consideration in those

seven cases, which was as follows:-

<Whether the presentation of report under

Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the police without the report

of Chemical examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory

amounts to incomplete challan and in the absence of

any extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of the

N.D.P.S. Act, the accused is entitled to bail under

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?=

5. The Division Bench answered the above reference by

holding that a Challan pre