9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1305 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Default bail - arrest on 18.07.2019 and the chargesheet in the present case was filed on 18.01.2020 without a report from the FSL - indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - A coordinate bench of this Court in SULEMAN VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 (8) TMI 1491 - DELHI HIGH COURT , in the background of the similar factual matrix, after discussing various judgments of this Court held At present, the settled law persists in the view that non filing of FSL report with the charge-sheet does not fall within the realms of Section 173(2)CrPC so as to consider it as incomplete report . In the present case although FSL report has not been filed, however, the charge-sheet was already filed on 3-3-2021 within the time period as per law. Further, the amount of quantity recovered from the accused is of commercial nature baring the accused from bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In view of the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in Suleman, this Court is of the opinion that the chargesheet filed in the present case is not incomplete - Application dismissed.
Issues involved:
The application sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC in a case under the NDPS Act due to the chargesheet being filed without a report from the FSL, which was deemed essential. The prosecution argued that the FSL report was subsequently filed after examining 618 exhibits, and previous judgments held that a chargesheet without the FSL report in an NDPS Act case is not incomplete. Judgment Details: 1. Default Bail Application: The applicant argued that the chargesheet filed without the FSL report was incomplete, granting him the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Reference was made to a Supreme Court direction to expedite the trial, which had not been completed despite the order. An interim bail was granted in a similar case based on non-filing of the FSL report. 2. Prosecution's Case: The prosecution detailed the recovery of contraband and the arrests made, emphasizing the significant quantity of contraband involved. It was mentioned that the FSL report was not filed with the main chargesheet due to the extensive examination required for 618 exhibits, and field testing kits were used for initial testing. 3. Legal Precedents: The court referred to previous judgments, including one where it was held that a chargesheet without the FSL report in an NDPS Act case is not incomplete. Citing various cases, it was established that the FSL report does not form an essential part of the chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. 4. Court's Decision: The court dismissed the application for default bail, following the precedent that the chargesheet in the present case was not incomplete despite the absence of the FSL report. The applicant was advised to seek bail on merits from the Trial Court, clarifying that the decision was limited to the issue of default bail and not a judgment on the case's merits. 5. Administrative Directions: The order was to be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent, and it was to be uploaded on the court's website promptly. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the law regarding the filing of the FSL report with the chargesheet in NDPS Act cases and affirms that such a report is not a mandatory requirement for the chargesheet to be considered complete under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
|
