Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1900 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - manufacturing and smuggling narcotic drugs as well as making illegal supply of the 'controlled substances' like pseudoephedrine within and outside India - recovery of 6kg 780gm pseudoephedrine and 2kg diphenoxylage powder from possession - HELD THAT - It requires no elaborate discussion that having regard to the legislative object behind enactment of Section 167(2) CrPC is to ensure that an accused person must not be in any circumstances, detained beyond ninety days pending investigation of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. As regard to a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A or for offences involving 'commercial quantity', in view of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the maximum detention period pending investigation can be extended to 180 days. The petitioner appears to be true while alleging that the investigating agency did not show the desired promptness in securing the FSL report of the samples sent on 16th and 23rd June, 2014 through special messenger. But then it cannot be overlooked that the Forensic Science Laboratory is not under the administrative control of Police Department and the delay in all probabilities occurred due to long queue of pending samples. The investigating agency therefore cannot be blamed entirely. Unfortunately, the learned Special Court has passed a totally casual order without elaborating the reasons which prompted it to grant extension to the prosecution to complete the investigation. In view of the fact that (i) the Additional Public Prosecutor was competent to apply for extension of time; (ii) such an application was moved before expiry of one hundred and eighty days' period; (iii) the extension was sought before the petitioner applied for his bail under Section 167(2) CrPC and (iv) the fact that no charge-sheet could be filed for want of FSL report as it would have led to rejection of the charge-sheet itself, the petitioner (Varinder Sandhu) is not entitled to the benefit of Section 167(2) CrPC. His revision petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as the petitioner's (Narinder Kumar Goyal) claim to release him on regular bail under Section 439 CrPC is concerned, it is true that he has been acquitted in some of the cases registered under the NDPS Act. However, having regard to the facts that (i) the petitioner has been found involved repeatedly in NDPS cases; (ii) he is currently facing trial along with Jagdish Singh @ Bhola in yet another case under NDPS Act registered by NCB Mumbai; (iii) he is alleged to be a close associate of the kingpin of drug mafia, coupled with the allegations attributed to him in the instant case, we are satisfied that none of the ingredients of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act can be said to have been satisfied. It is not expedient or desirable at all to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Bail application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Competency of the Additional Public Prosecutor to apply for an extension of the investigation period. 3. Validity of reasons for granting an extension for the completion of the investigation. 4. Consideration of bail on merits under Section 439 CrPC. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Statutory Bail: The primary issue in both cases was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that Section 167(2) CrPC ensures that an accused person must not be detained beyond ninety days pending investigation of an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. For offenses under Sections 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act involving 'commercial quantity,' the period can extend to 180 days. The court noted that an accused acquires an indefeasible right to bail if the investigation is not completed within this period. 2. Competency of the Additional Public Prosecutor: The petitioner (Varinder Sandhu) contended that the Additional Public Prosecutor was not competent to apply for an extension of the investigation period and only the 'Public Prosecutor' could do so. The court clarified that the term "Public Prosecutor" includes "Additional Public Prosecutor" as per Section 2(u) of the CrPC, which defines "Public Prosecutor" to mean any person appointed under Section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. Thus, the application by the Additional Public Prosecutor was deemed maintainable. 3. Validity of Reasons for Granting Extension: The court examined whether valid grounds existed for the Special Court to extend the period for completing the investigation. In Varinder Sandhu's case, the extension was sought due to the pending Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which was crucial for substantiating the allegations. The court acknowledged that the delay in obtaining the FSL report was not entirely attributable to the investigating agency. Despite the Special Court's casual order, the extension was justified as the FSL report was essential for the charge-sheet. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 4. Consideration of Bail on Merits: In Narinder Kumar Goyal's case, the court found that the petitioner's claim for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was misconceived as the Special Court had already granted an extension, and the charge-sheet was filed within the extended period. Regarding regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, the court noted the petitioner's repeated involvement in NDPS cases and his association with the kingpin of the drug mafia. The court concluded that the conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, and it was not desirable to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Conclusion: The court dismissed Varinder Sandhu's revision petition, stating he was not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC but could apply for bail on merits. Similarly, Narinder Kumar Goyal's bail application was dismissed on both statutory and merits grounds, considering his criminal background and ongoing investigations.
|