Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (11) TMI 1900 - HC - Indian Laws


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates