2011 (3) TMI 1414 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail application - application for bail has been dismissed - orders were passed without giving opportunity of being heard Held that - applicant was given opportunity of being heard before passing of the order dated 10th November, 2010 granting time to file the chargesheet. Merely because the applicant was not heard before passing the orders dated 16th July, 2010 and 15th September, 2010, his detention from November, 2010 does not become illegal, applicant at this stage, after filing of the chargesheet by the prosecution, is not entitled to seek bail on the ground of noncompliance of Section 36(A)(4) of The Act, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, application is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Application for bail after dismissal by Special Judge, legality of detention due to lack of hearing, compliance with Section 36(A)(4) of The Act.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed for bail after dismissal by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court. The applicant was arrested for possession of drugs, and extensions were granted for filing the chargesheet without hearing the applicant.

2. The applicant argued that the lack of hearing during the extension applications made the detention illegal. The defense contended that the orders lacked proper consideration and the applicant should be released on bail. The prosecution argued that the applicant was heard before a subsequent extension order and that bail was not applicable after chargesheet filing.

3. The judge examined previous judgments to determine the legal position. The judgment in the case of Sanjay Dutt clarified the right to bail after the filing of the chargesheet. The judge found compliance with Section 36(A)(4) of The Act and dismissed the argument of non-application of mind by the Special Judge and Public Prosecutor.

4. The judge emphasized that the applicant was heard before the order granting time to file the chargesheet, making the detention legal. The judge concluded that the applicant was not entitled to bail after the chargesheet filing and dismissed the bail application.

5. The judge reviewed the judgments cited by the defense, noting that none supported the applicant's case. Each judgment was analyzed and found irrelevant to the present case, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

6. In conclusion, the judge held that the applicant was not entitled to bail based on the legal provisions and previous judgments. The application for bail was dismissed, affirming the legality of the detention and compliance with the relevant legal requirements.