2014 (1) TMI 1946 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - recovery of 50 bottles of Rexcof of 100 ml each having Chlorpheniramine Malteate IP-4mg. and Codeine Phosphate IP-10 mg. - alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act - this application was filed on the ground that despite efforts made by the investigating agency the report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory had not been received thereby making it difficult to present the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within time - HELD THAT - The application for extension of time for presenting the challan in the present case only on the ground of non-reciept of the FSL report without giving any reasons as to why non-receipt of such report was sufficient cause for delay in the completion of investigation would amount to non-application of mind as is essential for seeking such extension of time by the public prosecutor as has been held by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau another 2009 (8) TMI 1290 - SUPREME COURT and Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra 2001 (3) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT . Though it would be immaterial in the context of an application moved under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. however it is necessary to also mention that upon enquiry from the learned State Counsel Mr. Sidhu has stated on instructions that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. The petitioner would consequently be released on bail upon providing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 22 of the NDPS Act - Application under Section 167 (ii) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-A of the NDPS Act - Statutory period of 180 days under Section 36-A(4) expired - Application for extension of time to submit challan - Application of mind by the prosecution - Non-receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory - Precedents cited for grant of bail - Non-application of mind by the Public Prosecutor - Habitual offender status of the petitioner.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a petition seeking regular bail for the petitioner, who has been in custody since 28.04.2013 following an FIR under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The FIR alleged the recovery of controlled substances from the petitioner. The petitioner invoked Section 167 (ii) of the Cr.P.C. along with Section 36-A of the NDPS Act due to the expiry of the statutory 180-day period without the challan being presented. The Special Court had earlier declined the petitioner's application for bail, citing the need for more time for investigation and challan submission. The prosecution's application for extension of time mentioned delays in receiving reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The petitioner's counsel relied on various Supreme Court and High Court judgments to support the bail application. The judgment in Sanjay Kumar Kedia's case was highlighted, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to apply its mind before seeking an extension of time. The Public Prosecutor's application for extension was scrutinized, with arguments made regarding the sufficiency of reasons for the delay in challan submission. The judgment noted discrepancies in the application and the lack of detailed reasoning for the delay due to non-receipt of the FSL report.

The court found that the prosecution's application lacked sufficient grounds for seeking an extension of time, as required by legal precedents. The judgment highlighted the importance of the Public Prosecutor applying their mind before making such requests. Additionally, the petitioner's non-habitual offender status was confirmed during the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail upon fulfilling the necessary bail and surety bond requirements set by the trial court.