2025 (6) TMI 1818 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking grant of default bail - accused person was lodging in custody for more than 180 days - non-application of mind by those persons who were entrusted with the duties of handling prosecution papers - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Until and unless the charge-sheet is placed before the concerned Court for acceptance it cannot be said that the same was submitted within the statutory period. Thus it appears that there was some negligence either on the part of the Court Sub-Inspector or the prosecution section to place the charge-sheet before the concerned Court below for passing appropriate order. Situated thus it appears that there were non-application of mind by those persons who were entrusted with the duties of handling prosecution papers and due to such fault the right of a person cannot be curtailed. The statutory period of detention of the accused person was expired on 02.11.2024. Since no charge-sheet was placed before the Court either on that day or on the following day so the accused person was entitled to be released on bail. As already stated the trial has already been commenced and by this time prosecution has adduced 6 Nos. of witnesses. The prosecution is to adduce more 4 or 5 Nos. of witnesses in this case. Whether the accused is innocent or guilty that can be ascertained only after conclusion of trial at the time of delivery of judgment by the concerned Learned Special Judge. However due to the aforesaid technical reasons the right of the accused person cannot be curtailed and as such the present accused is entitled to be released on bail. The accused namely Iman Hossain may be released on bail of his furnishing bail bond of Rs.1, 00, 000/- with one surety of like amount who must be a public servant to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge Unakoti District Kailashahar with the fulfilment of terms and conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to the failure of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to file the charge-sheet within the statutory period of 180 days.

2. Whether the delay in placing the charge-sheet before the learned Court below, despite its dispatch within the statutory period, affects the entitlement of the accused to bail.

3. The applicability and interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act concerning bail applications in narcotics-related offences.

4. The adequacy of communication of grounds of arrest to the accused and its impact on the legality of detention and bail entitlement.

5. The balancing of the accused's right to liberty against the societal interest in stringent enforcement of NDPS laws and the potential for trial vitiation or absconding if bail is granted.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC

The statutory framework under Section 167(2) CrPC mandates that if the investigation is not completed and the charge-sheet is not filed within 180 days of arrest in cases involving offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, the accused shall be released on bail. The Court referenced the authoritative precedent from the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia, which clarified that extensions beyond 180 days require strict compliance with conditions such as a report from the Public Prosecutor indicating progress and compelling reasons for extended detention.

In the present case, the accused was arrested on 07.05.2024, and the 180-day period expired on 02.11.2024. Although the charge-sheet was dispatched on 30.09.2024, it was not placed before the concerned Court within the statutory period due to procedural lapses, including the absence of the I.O.'s signature on the docket fly-leaf and subsequent inaction by the prosecution and court staff. The Court emphasized that mere dispatch of the charge-sheet does not satisfy the statutory requirement; the charge-sheet must be placed before the Court for acceptance within the prescribed time to avoid default bail.

The Court found that the failure to place the charge-sheet before the Court within time was due to negligence and non-application of mind by the prosecution and court officials, which cannot be visited upon the accused. Therefore, the accused was entitled to default bail.

Issue 2: Delay in Placing Charge-sheet and Its Legal Consequence

The prosecution argued that the charge-sheet was filed on 30.09.2024 and that the delay in placing it before the Court was a procedural issue. However, the Court held that the statutory period for detention is linked to the charge-sheet being placed before the Court, not merely its dispatch. The Court relied on the orders of the learned Special Judge dated 02.11.2024 and 04.11.2024, which confirmed that the charge-sheet was not placed before the Court due to the absence of the I.O.'s signature and subsequent inaction. This delay rendered the continued detention of the accused beyond the statutory period unlawful, entitling him to bail.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes a statutory bar on granting bail to accused persons involved in narcotics offences unless the Court is satisfied after hearing the Public Prosecutor that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The prosecution relied on the recent Apex Court decision in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, which emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 37 and the need for strict interpretation of the NDPS Act to achieve its object and purpose.

However, the Court observed that the mandatory bar under Section 37 cannot override the statutory safeguard of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. Since the charge-sheet was not placed before the Court within the prescribed period, the accused's continued detention was unlawful, and he was entitled to bail despite the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Court noted that the trial was ongoing and that the question of guilt or innocence would be decided only after trial conclusion.

Issue 4: Communication of Grounds of Arrest

The Court examined the precedents relating to the communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and corresponding statutory provisions, including PMLA provisions as elucidated in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha. These precedents mandate that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested person at the earliest to ensure meaningful knowledge and enable the accused to effectively seek bail or challenge detention.

In the instant case, the record showed that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused on 10.05.2024, which the Court found to be in compliance with the constitutional mandate. Therefore, no illegality was found in the manner of communication of grounds of arrest.

Issue 5: Balancing Liberty and Societal Interest

The prosecution contended that granting bail would vitiate the trial and risk the accused absconding, given the serious nature of the NDPS offences. The Court acknowledged the societal interest in stringent enforcement of narcotics laws and the need to prevent misuse of bail provisions. However, the Court emphasized that procedural safeguards protecting the accused's liberty cannot be bypassed due to prosecutorial or administrative lapses.

The Court imposed stringent bail conditions, including weekly court attendance, prohibition on leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence, to mitigate risks of trial interference or absconding. The Court also directed the learned Special Judge to ensure prompt placement of charge-sheets in future cases to avoid similar legal complications.

Significant Holdings:

"Until and unless the charge-sheet is placed before the concerned Court for acceptance it cannot be said that the same was submitted within the statutory period. Thus, it appears that there was some negligence either on the part of the Court Sub-Inspector or the prosecution section to place the charge-sheet before the concerned Court below for passing appropriate order. Situated thus, it appears that there were non-application of mind by those persons who were entrusted with the duties of handling prosecution papers and due to such fault the right of a person cannot be curtailed."

"The statutory period of detention of the accused person was expired on 02.11.2024. Since no charge-sheet was placed before the Court either on that day or on the following day so the accused person was entitled to be released on bail."

"The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act."

"The mandatory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot override the statutory safeguard of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC."

"The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested at the earliest to serve the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1)."

"The accused is entitled to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety who must be a public servant, and subject to conditions ensuring attendance and non-interference with evidence."

In conclusion, the Court allowed the bail application on the ground that the statutory period for detention expired without the charge-sheet being placed before the Court, entitling the accused to default bail. The Court underscored the importance of procedural compliance in filing charge-sheets and directed the learned Special Judge to ensure prompt placement of charge-sheets in future to prevent legal complications. The Court balanced the accused's right to liberty with the societal interest in effective prosecution by imposing stringent bail conditions.