Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1491 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of Default bail - Smuggling - substance recovered is actually a banned substance under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act or not - FSL Report not presented - HELD THAT:- It has been repeatedly emphasized by various courts that the right to seek default bail is an indefeasible right provided to the accused. The object of the Default Bail is inherently linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, laying emphasis on safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention. In SANJAY DUTT VERSUS STATE THRU. C.B.I. BOMBAY [1994 (9) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT], the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail for not filing the charge sheet within the statutory period is enforceable by the accused only till the filing of the challan Further, if an accused does not avail Default Bail, they can always seek Regular Bail under Cr.P.C. Whether the FSL report forms part of the charge sheet and is an essential prerequisite to file with the charge sheet? - HELD THAT:- In Kishan Lal vs. State [1989 (9) TMI 408 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this Court observed that a police report does not need to enclose an expert opinion of Government Scientific expert with the charge sheet and thus, no bail was granted under Section 167(2) as the charge sheet was already filed within stipulated time. A similar view was followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Arbaz vs. State of NCT of Delhi [2020 (11) TMI 1114 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein it was observed that the accused should not be entitled to bail in default as the charge sheet was already filed. The Court held that the report shall not form part of the charge sheet and hence, the bail under Section 167(2) was rejected. 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) of the Cr.P.C. 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 03.03.2021 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. The court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.05.2022. The application moved by the petitioners seeking bail in default under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
|