2020 (11) TMI 630 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of Bail granted - Smuggling - Contraband item - Section 36A(1)(d) of NDPS Act for offences under Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 read with Section 38 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - The appellants car by which they were travelling from Omerga to Hyderabad on 11.01.2018 was intercepted by the D.R.I. officials of Hyderabad Zonal Unit near the Kamkole near Hyderabad and from the possession of the appellants 45.874 Kgs of narcotic substance was recovered. Appellants in the statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act have stated that they have started from Omerga to Chennai in the car in which the narcotic substance was being transported. The remand of the appellants was extended from time to time till 12.07.2018 by Special Court, Hyderabad. On 11.01.2018, recovery of narcotic substance was also made at Omerga in the factory premises of M/s Pragati Electrical Work, MIDC Omerga, Maharashtra, on which D.R.I. has registered a case and a combined complaint dated 06.07.2018 was submitted by Intelligence Officer, D.R.I., Bangalore before the Special Court, Omerga. Complaint under Section 36A(1)(d) of NDPS Act for offences under Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 read with Section 38 of the NDPS Act has been filed dated 06.07.2018 by Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. in Omerga Court. It is true that two offences, one at Hyderabad being at the instance of D.R.I., Hyderabad namely D.R.I. 48 of 2018 was registered and another case Special NDPS No. 17 of 2018 by the D.R.I., Bangalore, Zonal Unit. A combined complaint taking care of both the offences was filed before the Special Court, Omerga as noted above wherein offences committed by the accused were also inquired and dealt with. There is ample material in the complaint that the transportation of narcotic substance started from Omerga, Maharashtra and was being allegedly to be taken to Chennai and intercepted at Hyderabad. The complaint, which has been brought on the record gives the detailed facts including the journey and the interception of appellants at Hyderabad. The combined complaint having been filed on 06.07.2018, i.e., well within 180 days, the High Court did not commit any error in cancelling the default bail granted to the appellants on 12.07.2018. There is no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment /order of the High Court - All the appeals are dismissed subject to liberty granted to the appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Jurisdiction and communication regarding the filing of a combined charge sheet.
3. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
4. Consideration of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:
The appeals were filed against the High Court's judgment, which cancelled the bail granted to the appellants by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The High Court allowed the petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., cancelling the bail granted on 12.07.2018. The appellants were initially granted bail because the charge sheet had not been filed within the 180-day period prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. However, it was later revealed that a combined charge sheet had indeed been filed on 06.07.2018, which was within the stipulated period. The High Court noted that the filing of the charge sheet was not communicated to the Special Court, Hyderabad, leading to the erroneous grant of bail.

2. Jurisdiction and Communication Regarding the Filing of a Combined Charge Sheet:
The appellants were intercepted by D.R.I. officials and found in possession of 45.874 Kgs of narcotic substance. They were arrested and remanded by the Special Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. A combined charge sheet was filed by D.R.I., Bangalore, on 06.07.2018 before the Special Court, Omerga, which included the appellants as accused Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The High Court observed that the filing of the charge sheet was not communicated to the Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, which led to the granting of default bail. The High Court emphasized that the charge sheet was filed within the 180-day period, making the appellants ineligible for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Entitlement to Default Bail Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:
The appellants argued that they were entitled to default bail as no charge sheet was filed before the Special Court, Hyderabad, by 12.07.2018. The High Court, however, noted that the combined charge sheet was filed on 06.07.2018 in Omerga, which was within the 180-day period. The High Court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the charge sheet was filed in time, even though it was not communicated to the Special Court, Hyderabad.

4. Consideration of Regular Bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the default bail. The Court noted that the appellants had filed a regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Omerga Court, which was withdrawn on 25.09.2018. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the appellants to file a fresh regular bail application before the Omerga Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which should be considered on its merits without being influenced by the High Court's observations. The Court also directed that the bail application be decided expeditiously.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the High Court's order canceling the default bail granted to the appellants. The Court allowed the appellants to seek regular bail afresh before the Omerga Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., directing that the application be considered on its merits and decided promptly.