Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 970 (PNJ)

Shinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2015-05-21

ANITA CHAUDHRY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- CRM-15425-2015 2. For the reasons set out in the application, same is allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-15213-2015 3. Petitioner Shinder Singh is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.382 dated 06.09.2014, registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2014. The period of 180 days to complete the investigation was to lapse on 03.04.2015. Prior thereto, on 23.02.2015 the prosecution filed an application under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, seeking extension of time to complete the investigation of the case from 180 days to 360 days. Notice of the same was given and the application was allowed by the trial Court on 04.03.2015 and 30 days more were granted to complete the investigation i.e. upto 03.04.2015. The challan was not filed for want of report of Chemical Examiner. Consequently, on 04.04.2015, after lapse of extended period of 210 days, prosecution again filed an application under Section 36(A) of NDPS Act seeking further extension of time to complete the investigation. Notice of the said application was given to the accused. During pendency of that application the petitioner also moved application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2015 seeking bail on the ground that despite lapse of extended period of 210 days to complete the investigation and 180 days of his detention which expired on 11.04.2015, investigating agency failed to present the challan. The second application under Section 36-A of the Act and the application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. were disposed of on 15.04.2015. Application for extension of time was allowed and 20 days’ more time was granted with retrospective effect to complete the investigation while the bail application of petitioner was dismissed. 5. The petitioner seeks concession of bail claiming that an indefeasible right had accrued to him on expiry of 180 days of his custody which could not be defeated by pendency of the second application under Section 36-A (4) of the Act which was not allowed prior to the expiry of extended time of 30 days. 6. It was also contended that the extension granted on 15.04.2015 could not operate retrospectively as per the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. It was also contended that the extension granted on 15.04.2015 could not operate retrospectively as per the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was urged that the Court was obliged to deal with the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the day when it was filed and that right was not lost even the second application for extension of time was pending. 7. On the other hand, the submission made on behalf of State was that the delay in disposal of the second application had occurred on account of the fact that notice of the application was issued to the accused and it was disposed of after filing reply of the accused and there were compelling reasons as to why the challan could not be filed. 8. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and the State counsel. The prosecution agency had sought extension of time under the statute by moving an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. 9. In Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 47 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 225 (SC)] : CRM-M-17260- 2014, decided on 29.5.2014, taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1076] : 2009 (17) SCC 631 , besides the provisions of under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act and Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., held: - “I have considered the ratio of the judgment in case Sanjay Kedia (supra) on the basis of which the prosecution had moved an application in the shape of report under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act. It has been held in the said judgment that in case the investigation is not completed within 180 days the Court is empowered to authorize detention for a period upto one year provided following conditions are specified: - i) report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation; ii) specific and compelling reasons for seeking detention of the accused beyond 180 days should be mentioned; and iii) notice should have been issued to the accused. In the present case, I am of the opinion that Public Prosecutor had taken abundant caution to present application well in time i.e., on 10.4.2014 but the said application having not been allowed after notice to the accused within 180 days, an indefeasible right had accrued to the petitioner when he moved an application on 15.4.2014. The said right could not have been defeated by delaying a decision on the application for extension of time to present challan and to permit detention beyond 180 days or by delaying the decision on the application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner on 15.4.2014 for 3.5.1014. Indefeasible right accrued to the petitioner could not have been defeated. The petitioner, thus, has got a right to be released on bail. *** ** * * ** * ** Before parting with it may be observed that as the petitioner has been able to get the benefit of default of the prosecution agency and also the delay caused in decision of the application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, I am of the considered opinion that whenever any application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, is filed by the prosecution agency seeking authorization of the detenu as accused in custody beyond the period of 180 days, said application should be decided expeditiously.” 10. In Kaka Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-22760- 2014, decided on 12.8.2014, taking into consideration the judgment reported in Union of India through CBI Vs. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, [2014(4) Law Herald (SC) 2942] : 2014 (4) RAJ 265, it was observed : - “I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In a judgment passed by this Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 47 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 225 (SC)] : CRM M- 17260 of 2014 granting bail in similar circumstances vide order dated May 29, 2014, this Court has observed that whenever any application under Section 36 A (4) of the Act was filed by the prosecution agency seeking authorization of detention of an accused in custody beyond the period of 180 days, said application should be decided expeditiously. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through CBI Vs. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through CBI Vs. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, [2014(4) Law Herald (SC) 2942] : 2014 (4) RAJ 265 has issued directions that an application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused should be decided by the Magistrate on the same day. The petitioner in the present case seeks to take advantage of the following lapses:- i) lapses on the part of the FSL in sending the report expeditiously pertaining to the narcotic medicines recovered from the petitioner; ii) default on the part of the prosecution agency to present challan on account of above said lapse; iii) lapse on the part of the trial Court in not deciding the application filed by Public Prosecutor on September 21, 2013 prior to the expiry of 180 days under Section 36 A (4) of the Act; iv) lapse on the part of the Court in not deciding the application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Which was filed on September 24, 2013. The petitioner seems to have acquired an indefeasible right to be released on bail on the basis of the above said circumstances, as the statute confers a right upon him to be released after expiry of 180 days but at the same time, it is not out of place to observe here that as an abundant caution, the prosecution agency in order to prevent the release of accused had filed an application under Section 36 A (4) of the Act on September 21, 2013 which application could have been decided after issuing notice to the petitioner in jail by September 24, 2013 before expiry of period of 180 days. Had that application been decided by passing a speaking order in accordance with law, the petitioner would not have got an opportunity to seek the advantage of default of the prosecution agency in presentation of challan by moving an application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.” 11. It has been observed on numerous occasions that Courts dealing with the cases under the NDPS Act should expeditiously decide the application prior to the expiry of period of 180 days, in case the same is filed before the expiry of above said period. At the same time, it was also directed that the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Union of India through CBI Vs. At the same time, it was also directed that the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Union of India through CBI Vs. Nirala Y adav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, 2014 (4) RAJ 265, directing that the application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act should be disposed of by the concerned Magistrate on the same day should be complied with. 12. A co-ordinate Bench in Ranjit Singh @ Rana Vs. State of Punjab, in Crl. Revision No.2087 of 2014 has referred the following issues before the larger Bench for adjudication vide order dated 11.09.2014:- (i) Whether the petitioner has indefeasible right to be released on bail on the expiry of period of 60 or 90 or 180 days as the case may be; (ii) Whether the right to bail of the petitioner gets effected in case the application is moved after the expiry of that period; (iii) Whether the petitioner has a right to be released on bail even without moving any application on expiry of said period; (iv) Whether the application moved by the prosecution can be extended as a matter of right or after seeing the reasons and circumstances of each case. (v) Whether after dismissal of the bail application before the trial Court, the remedy is of filing revision or petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C .or 482 CrPC; (vi) Whether while deciding the application under Section 167(2) CrPC, the merits of the case or nature of the offence is to be seen or not; (vii) Whether the application for extension of time moved by the prosecution and application seeking grant of bail moved by the accused should be decided together on the same date and in the presence of both the parties; 13. In context of the aforesaid decisions, it is observed that the right to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., accrued to the petitioner on 11.04.2015 on expiry of 180 days of his detention and expiry of extended period of 210 days. The application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. had been filed on 13.04.2015 and no decision was taken by the Court concerned on the second application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, till 15.04.2015, which was filed on 04.04.2015. The application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. had been filed on 13.04.2015 and no decision was taken by the Court concerned on the second application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, till 15.04.2015, which was filed on 04.04.2015. The investigating agency did not file the application for second extension well before the lapse of extended period of 210 days and filed the application for second extension after the lapse of extended period. An indefeasible right to be released on bail which accrued to the petitioner after 11.04.2015, could not have been defeated by keeping the application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and second application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, pending till 15.04.2015. 14. The petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ——————