The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has held that statutory bail once granted cannot be cancelled just because FSL Report has been filed with the chargesheet susequently.
A single-judge bench of Justice Deepak Gupta provided clarity on the circumstances under which default bail can be cancelled and ensured that the administration of justice is not frustrated while safeguarding an accused person's rights under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Brief Facts of Case:
The case involves Bharat Kumar, the petitioner, who was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The arrest occurred on September 6, 2022, when law enforcement officers recovered 21.54 grams of MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) from Bharat Kumar's possession. This substance is classified as a narcotic drug. Following the arrest, Bharat Kumar remained in judicial custody for an extended period because the investigating agency failed to file the required charge-sheet within the stipulated time frame, as per Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The CrPC specifies a maximum period within which the investigation must be completed and the charge-sheet filed, failing which the accused becomes eligible for default bail. In this context, Bharat Kumar applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC after spending 196 days in judicial custody. Subsequently, an Additional Sessions Judge in Jhajjar granted the petitioner interim bail until the filing of the charge-sheet and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
Contentions of Petitioner:
Bharat Kumar's primary contention is that he is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He argues that this right arises because the investigating agency failed to file the charge-sheet within the prescribed time frame, which is mandated by law. Bharat Kumar asserts that he has spent an extended period in judicial custody due to this delay. The petitioner's counsel relies on legal precedents, specifically referring to the Supreme Court's decision in "M. Ravindran Vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence" (2021) 2 SCC 485. This precedent is cited to support the argument for the grant of default bail and to emphasize the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of Respondent:
The State of Haryana argues that they have received the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirming the presence of methamphetamine in the recovered substance. Additionally, they state that a challan (charge-sheet) has been prepared and is ready for filing in court. The State contends that default bail, similar to regular bail, can be cancelled after the filing of the charge-sheet. They rely on a Supreme Court decision in "The State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy," 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 873, to support this argument. The State suggests that after the filing of the challan, if specific grounds for cancellation are met, the default bail should be cancelled.
Observation of Court:
The court recognized that if the investigating agency fails to file the final report or charge-sheet within the prescribed period, the accused has an indefeasible right to be granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This right is intended to prevent the undue detention of an accused person. The court emphasized that the purpose of granting default bail is to impress upon the need for expeditious investigation within the time limit prescribed by law. It is meant to prevent laxity in the investigative process. The court clarified that an accused person released on default bail is not released on merits but rather due to the failure of the prosecuting agency to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet within the specified time frame. The court addressed the issue of whether default bail could be cancelled after the charge-sheet has been filed. It held that, in certain circumstances, default bail can be cancelled on merits.
However, specific conditions must be met, including the establishment of a strong case against the accused and special reasons being shown from the charge-sheet that the accused has committed a non-bail able crime. The court pointed out that default bail can be cancelled on other general grounds, such as tampering with evidence or witnesses, not cooperating with the investigating agency, or not cooperating with the concerned trial court. These grounds are in addition to the conditions mentioned in Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the interpretation and application of the law should be in furtherance of the administration of justice. It highlighted that cancelling default bail based solely on the filing of the charge-sheet, without considering the gravity of the offense and other factors, may not serve the interests of justice.
Decision of the court:
The petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) due to the investigating agency's failure to file the charge-sheet within the prescribed time frame. Default bail can be cancelled after the charge-sheet has been filed if a strong case against the accused is established based on the charge-sheet. Special reasons are provided to show that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime. Grounds mentioned in Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the CrPC are met. Mere filing of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report and challan is not, in itself, a sufficient reason for cancelling default bail. The court's decision is based on ensuring both the protection of the accused's rights and the administration of justice.
Case Title: Bharat Kumar V. State of Haryana
Case No.: CRM-M-21583-2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Advocate for Petitioner: Ms. Himani Anand, Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Adv. . .
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
