2011 (2) TMI 1219 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ petition - Bail application - Extension of time for filing the chargesheet granted - petitioner was arrested on the allegation that he was found in possession of 34 grams of ecstasy tablets, 26 grams of MDMA, 17 grams of cocain and 6 ml LSD - no material has been placed in support of the contention that the Public Prosecutor did not apply his mind while seeking extensions for filing the chargesheet, bail application rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order granting extension for filing chargesheet under the NDPS Act, rejection of bail application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order granting extension for filing chargesheet under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with the rejection of the bail application. The petitioner was arrested for possession of narcotics, and the respondent sought extensions for filing chargesheet, which were granted. The petitioner filed a writ petition against these orders, which was allowed by the High Court, setting aside the extension orders as the petitioner was not heard before granting them. The petitioner then filed a fresh bail application before the Special Court.

2. The respondent filed the chargesheet without a report from the Chemical Analyst or CFSL, opposing the bail application. The Special Court maintained the extension orders and dismissed the bail application, leading to the present petition. The petitioner argued that the extensions were illegal as the chargesheet was filed without a C.A. report, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Public Prosecutor defended the extensions, stating the chargesheet was filed due to the impending expiry of the extended period.

3. The Court considered the submissions and records, noting that the petitioner did not raise the argument before the Special Court that testing was done on the spot without awaiting the C.A. report. The Court declined to entertain this argument as it was not raised earlier. The Court also rejected the argument that subsequent filing of chargesheet rendered the extensions illegal, stating that previous extensions cannot be judged based on subsequent events. The Court distinguished the petitioner's cited judgments, finding no merit in their application to the present case.

4. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petition, discharging the rule. The Court held that the extensions for filing chargesheet and the rejection of bail were justified, based on the circumstances and legal provisions. The Court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal precedents cited during the proceedings.