The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in case of the invalidation of the order of extension to submit the final report under Section 173 of CrPC, further detention of the accused will become unlawful.
Brief Facts:
The police party while acting on secret information during patrolling duty intercepted the car of the accused persons who were suspected to have been carrying a heavy quantity of charas with them. After the car was stopped by the police, one of the accused managed to escape while the other two were caught by the police. The police recovered 1 kg 800 gms of charas from the vehicle and accordingly arrested the accused persons.
An application was moved by the Investigating Officer seeking an extension of time for the presentation of a report under Section 173 CrPC which was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC which was dismissed by the court.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the application under Section 167(2) CrPC for the grant of bail had been declined only on the basis of the fact that the period of challan was extended by 90 days, after setting aside this order by the court, the petitioner was now entitled to get bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the state agreed with the counsel appearing for the petitioner and acknowledged that the petitioner is entitled to get bail if the extension order was set aside by the court.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that if an order granting an extension to the Investigating Officer to submit the final report under Section 173 of CrPC is overturned, then the further detention of the accused becomes unlawful. The court further observed that in case of failure by the Investigating Agency to submit the report under Section 173 CrPC within the stipulated time, the accused cannot be denied the right to get bail.
The court concluded that further detention of the petitioners after the extension of 90 days in the presentation of challan, which itself is bad in the eyes of the law would be in violation of Section 167(2) CrPC, read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
The decision of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.
Case Title: Rajpal @ Billu v. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No.: CRR-1850-2022 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Mr. Pulkit Dhanda
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Poswal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
