9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1424 - HC - Indian LawsDismissal of bail application of the petitioner filed under Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure - possession of 60 jute bags containing poppy husk - HELD THAT - If the investigation is not completed within a period of 180 days extension of time up to one year can be granted on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused. In the present case the application for extension of time was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor without the report of the Public Prosecutor. The report of the Public Prosecutor as per Section 36-A(4) is the essential requirement for granting extension of time. In the present case this report is not a part of the application and the reason given for extension of time is that the report of the Chemical Examiner has not been received and therefore the challan could not be presented. In the case of JEEVAN SHARMA @ VICKY VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 2014 (1) TMI 1946 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT the reason for extension of time was being sought on the ground that the report of FSL Mohali had not been received. Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR KEDIA VERSUS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2007 (12) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT held that under Section 36-A (4) of the Act extension could be given by the Court on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating he progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 180 days. In the present case no such report of the Public Prosecutor was attached with the application. Hence the application for extension of time was wrongly allowed as the petitioner had a right to be released on bail as per Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Order dated 10.11.2014 passed by Judge Special Court Jalandhar is set aside. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate Jalandhar - petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Bail application dismissal under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. 2. Extension of time for presenting challan under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act. Issue 1: Bail application dismissal under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner filed a revision petition against the dismissal of the bail application by the Special Court, Jallandhar under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, along with another individual, was found in possession of a commercial quantity of poppy husk leading to the FIR registration. The Public Prosecutor sought an extension of time to present the challan, and the trial court granted an extension of 32 days beyond the 180-day period. However, it was noted that the application for extension lacked the essential report of the Public Prosecutor as required by Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. Issue 2: Extension of time for presenting challan under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act: The court referred to various judgments, including Nardev Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing the necessity of a proper application for extension of time with the Public Prosecutor's report indicating investigation progress or specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days. The court highlighted that without such a report, the accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail after 180 days. It was noted that in the present case, the application for extension was based on the non-receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report without the required report of the Public Prosecutor, leading to the wrongful allowance of the extension. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order of the Special Court, Jallandhar, and granting bail to the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, requiring a report from the Public Prosecutor for granting extensions beyond the 180-day period. The decision reaffirmed the accused's right to bail if the extension application lacks the necessary report, as established in previous judgments and legal precedents.
|
