2014 (3) TMI 1220 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - recovery of 45 bottles of Rexcof each weighing 10 ml. and 20 strips of Parvan Spas Capsules, each strip having 10 capsule (total 200 capsules) - seeking extension of time for filing final report under Section 173 Cr.PC on the plea that chemical report from the laboratory, had not been received - HELD THAT - In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered exactly the same satisfaction recorded by the Public Prosecutor recorded in an application which was made for extension of time beyond 180 days of custody of the accused. While dealing with the same matter, the said co-ordinate Bench in JEEVAN SHARMA @ VICKY VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 2014 (1) TMI 1946 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT had observed Keeping in view the contents of the application moved by the public prosecutor for extension of time, I find that the matter would be squarely covered by the ratio of the law laid down in Sanjay Kumar Kedias' case, as extension of time for presentation of challan was obviously sought on similar grounds as given in the case before the Apex Court, wherein such reason has been held to be not good for grant of extension of time. Right to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.PC is indefeasible. It is enforceable by accused from time of default till filing of challan. But this right of accused to be released on bail would get extinguished if application under Section 167(2) Cr.PC is filed after the charge sheet is received by the court - Admittedly, the petitioner had moved application under Section 167(2) Cr.PC on 12.9.2013 whereas the challan had been filed on 1.11.2013. Application moved by the prosecution on 6.9.2013 before the Special Court being not in conformity with the conditions laid down in the proviso to Section 36A(4) of the Act becomes legally inconsequential. Thus, by setting aside order dated 21.9.2013 passed by the Special Court, Sangrur, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Court, Sangrur.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC due to delay in presenting report under Section 173 Cr.PC and rejection of bail application. Compliance with conditions for extending detention beyond 180 days. Evaluation of application for extension of time by prosecution. Right to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.PC.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC due to the prosecution's failure to present the report under Section 173 Cr.PC within the stipulated period. The petitioner claimed that his bail application was wrongly rejected, and the time for filing the report was improperly extended by the Court.

2. The petitioner was accused of possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics, which falls under the proviso to Rule 4 of Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The recovery included 45 bottles of Rexcof and 20 strips of Parvan Spas Capsules.

3. The respondent-State contested the petitioner's claim, stating that the investigating officer made efforts to obtain the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory but faced obstacles beyond his control. The validity and legality of the order extending the time for filing the report were asserted.

4. The conditions for extending the detention of an accused beyond 180 days under Section 36A(4) of the Act require a report from the public prosecutor indicating investigation progress, specific reasons for detention, and notice to the accused.

5. The application for extension of time by the prosecution was based on the delay in receiving the chemical report from the laboratory, which was sent for analysis. However, the application lacked details on efforts made to expedite the process or follow up on the report.

6. The satisfaction recorded by the prosecution for seeking an extension of time was deemed routine and casual, lacking substantial justification for the delay. Previous judgments highlighted the insufficiency of such reasons for granting extensions.

7. The right to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.PC is enforceable from the time of default until the filing of the charge sheet. However, the petitioner's application for bail was filed before the charge sheet was submitted, making it legally inconsequential.

8. Ultimately, the Court set aside the order extending the time for filing the report and granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the decision did not affect the case's merits. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the required bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Court.