The Punjab and Haryana High Court expounded that the Accused has an indefeasible right to bail if the investigation agency is unable to present the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) within the prescribed time.
In the present case, the investigating agency sought an extension of 90 days, and the same was granted. However, the order allowing for extension was set aside. Therefore, when the extension itself is declared as bad in law the detention of Petitioner would be violative of Section 167(2) read with Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”)
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered against the Petitioners as they were in the possession of 400 grams of heroin. The Accused/Petitioners moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of default bail. However the same was dismissed. Therefore, the present revision petition has been preferred.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the Petitioner was entitled to default bail as the period of challan was extended by 90 days.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and Section 167(2) proviso (a) of Cr.P.C. and opined that the Accused has an indefeasible right to bail if the investigation agency is unable to present the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the prescribed time.
In the present case, the investigating agency sought an extension of 90 days, and the same was granted. However, the order allowing for extension was set aside. Therefore, when the extension itself is declared as bad in law the detention of Petitioner would be violative of Section 167(2) read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
The decision of the Court:
Hence, keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the present revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside and the Petitioners were ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Case Title: Dhruv Kumar @ Alok and Ors Vs State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No: CRR-1410- 2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Mr. Raj Mohan, and Mr. Upasna Gandhi
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
