Karnataka High Court

Nagaraj S/O. Doddabasappa Patri vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.102126 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJ
S/O DODDABASAPPA PATRI
AGE: 21 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R/O NEGALUR - 591 316
TALUK AND DISTRICT: HAVERI.
                                              ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
                                             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2023 ON
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 167(2) OF CR.P.C. IN
SPL.SC NO.2/2023 PN THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI REGISTERED FOR THE
                                 2



OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2)(n), 506, 109 AND 34 OF IPC
R/W SEC. 6, 10, 12 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
CONSEQUENTLY, GRANT THE STATUTORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                               ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an

order dated 03-07-2023 passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Haveri in Special S.C.No.02 of 2023

rejecting an application filed under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of

the Cr.P.C., for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506,

109 and 34 of the IPC r/w Sections 6, 10, 12 and 17 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'

for short).

2. Heard Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner/accused No.1 is a boy of 21 years. It is alleged

by the complainant that he has two daughters, elder one is aged 14

years 6 months studying in 9th standard in a school in the village

(who will be hereinafter referred to as 'the victim'). In the month

of October, on account of Dasara vacation, it is the complaint that

she was in possession of a mobile phone without anybody's

knowledge and on enquiry, it was revealed that accused

No.1/petitioner had given her the mobile phone and used to

threaten her to meet him as and when he wanted. On 09-10-2022

at about 12 p.m. when nobody was in the house, the father being

away, accused No.1 is said to have come to the house of the victim

and on the pretext that he would marry her at a later point in time

had a sexual intercourse. The complaint narrates it to be a rape.

This incident comes to the knowledge of the father of the victim/girl

and a complaint is registered in crime No.76 of 2022 for the

aforesaid offences. The Police conduct investigation and filed a

charge sheet. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner files an

application before the concerned Court under sub-section (2) of

Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., contending that a defective charge sheet

filed is no charge sheet in the eye of law and, therefore, he is

entitled to statutory bail. The concerned Court hears the parties,

considers the objections filed by the prosecution and rejects the

application seeking statutory bail. It is the rejection that has driven

the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

urge a solitary contention with all vehemence viz., statutory bail is

a right of an accused in a case where prosecution fails to file the

charge sheet within 90 days of registration of the crime. It is his

submission that the charge sheet though filed within 90 days, it is a

defective one and it is no charge sheet in the eye of law. Therefore,

the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader however,

vehemently refutes the submissions to contend that mere non-filing

of Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL') report along with the charge

sheet would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to seek

enlargement on bail under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the

Cr.P.C., What is necessary is a charge sheet to be filed. Charge

sheet is filed awaiting report of FSL. That by itself cannot make the

charge sheet defective and the alleged defective charge sheet

cannot lead to grant of bail under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They, in fact,

lie in a narrow compass. What requires consideration is, whether

the petitioner/accused No.1 could be enlarged on bail, when an

application is filed under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the

Cr.P.C. Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.-- (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary

hereinafter prescribed relating; to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that--

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding -


      (i)    ninety days, where the investigation
             relates to an offence punishable with
             death,     imprisonment  for    life  or
             imprisonment for a term of not less than
             ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the

accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention injudicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.

Explanation I. --For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.

Explanation II.--If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.

Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution."

(Emphasis supplied)

8. In terms of Section 167(2)(a) of the Cr.P.C., an accused

will be entitled to bail in the event the final report is not filed within

90 days from the date on which the accused was sent to judicial

custody. Filing of charge sheet is dealt with under Section 173 of

the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.--(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay

(1A) The investigation in relation to rape of a child may be completed within three months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.

(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating--

      (a)    the names of the parties;
      (b)    the nature of the information;
      (c)    the names of the persons who appear to be

acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or section 376E of the Penal Code, 1860.

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so

directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.

(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report--

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports

regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. (supra) deals with filing of final

report by the Police after investigation. Section 173(2) of

the Cr.P.C. mandates that once investigation is completed the

officer in-charge of a Police Station shall forward the report to the

Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the

final report, indicating the factors that are narrated in sub-Section

(2) of Section 173. Section 173(5) mandates that when such report

is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the Police

Officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report all

documents or relevant extract thereof on which the prosecution

proposes to rely on, other than those already sent to the Magistrate

during investigation and the statements recorded under Section 161

of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its

witnesses. Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. deals with power of the

Magistrate to direct further investigation to be conducted in a given

case. Therefore, it is open for the Police to conduct further

investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. This is the

frame work on which release on bail of an accused and filing of

charge sheet are dealt with. It is these that are germane to be

noticed in the case at hand.

10. It is an admitted fact that FSL report was not

accompanying with the charge sheet when the prosecution filed its

final report before the Court on 08-01-2023. The issue whether the

petitioner would get a right to get himself enlarged on bail in the

absence of a FSL report in the charge sheet need not detain this

Court for long or delve deep into the matter. A Division Bench of

Bombay High Court in the case of MANAS KRISHNA T.K. v.

STATE1 was answering a reference to the Division Bench in view of

conflicting views of two Learned Single Judges on the very issue of

an accused becoming entitled to enlargement on default bail on the

ground that FSL report did not accompany the final report. The

Division Bench answering the question holds as follows:

"2. The main issue which falls for determination in this reference is whether, in a case under the NDPS Act, the investigation can be said to be complete within the period prescribed under Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure

2021 SCC OnLine Bom.2955

Code (Cr.PC), when a police report under Section 173 (2) is filed before the Special Court without any CA/FSL report along. If, based upon such a police report, an investigation is held as incomplete, then, the accused will be entitled to default bail. However, if the investigation is held as complete, no question of default bail would arise.

3. This reference arose on the account of the following:--

(a) On 07.01.2020, FIR No. 5/2020 was registered at the Anjuna Police Station against the applicant/accused alleging commission of an offense under section 20 (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The FIR alleged that the accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity (0.5 gms) of L.S.D. contraband under the NDPS Act. The accused was arrested on the same date i.e. 07.01.2020. The accused's bail application No. 76/2020 was rejected by the Special Court 29.06.2020.

(b) The Investigating Officer (10) filed a report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C. (Charge-sheet) before the Special Court on 04.07.2020. This was the 179th day since the arrest of the first remand. This means that the charge-sheet was filed within the 180 days time limit provided in Section 167 (2) Cr. P.C. r/w Section 36(A)(4) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

(c) Along with the charge-sheet, the 10 also filed before the Special Court on 04.07.2020 itself several documents in terms of Section 173 (5) of Cr. P.C. This included a Panchanama in which it was recorded that a field test was conducted at the spot where the accused was apprehended and that the results suggested that the substance recovered from the shoulder bag carried by the accused, was indeed L.S.D. However, the 10, along with the charge sheet, did not file any Chemical Analyser (CA)/FSL report concerning the sample attached and sent

to the laboratory. Such CA/FSL report was ultimately filed beyond the period prescribed in section 167(2) Cr. P.C. confirming that the substance recovered was indeed L.S.D.

(d) The accused had applied for bail before this Court on 07.07.2020 but withdrew this application on 07.08.2020 with liberty to apply before the Special Court. Such bail application was filed on 22.09.2020 but was rejected on 21.11.2020. The accused then applied for bail before this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) (Filing) no. 88 of 2021 (the present application).

(e) Mr. Poulekar relied on the following set of decisions which according to him, support the aforesaid position urged by him: (i) Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 3 Mah LJ 689,

(ii) Punjaram v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Cri LJ 4658, (iii) Ranjeet Manohar Machrekar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No. 509/2014 (Bombay), (iv) Manik Sahebrao Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No. 241/2017 (Bombay), (v) Seema Raju Panchariya v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No. 65/2018 (Aurangabad), (vi) SagarParshuram Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application (ST) No. 4761/2020 (Bombay).

(f) On the other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor (PP) pointed out to the Learned Single Judge, a set of judgments that might invite a finding that the decisions relied on by Mr. Poulekar are either 'per incuriam 'or at any rate, in direct conflict. The decisions relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor included the following : (i) Balaji Vasantrao Suwarnkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Mah LJ 159,

(ii) State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre, (1995) 1 SCC 42, (iii) Babu s/o Rakhmanji Khamkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 4 Bom CR 335, (iv) Rohini Mahavir Godse v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 Mah LJ 492, (v) Rafael Palafox Garcia v. Union of India, 2008 All M.R. (Cri) 3031,

(vi) Sheikh Shabbirs/o Mohd Shafi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application no. 143/2011 (Nagpur Bench), (vii) Srihari Mahadu Valse v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No. 3284/2018,

(viii) Dheeraj Wadhawan v. C.B.I. - 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 9461.

(g) Confronted with the rival sets of judgments, the Learned Single Judge, by her order dated 07.07.2021 opined that the following questions arise and can be more advantageously considered by the Division Bench of this Court:--

i. Whether the presentation of a report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. by the police without the report of Chemical Analyser/FSL amounts to incomplete challan and in the absence of any extension of time under Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act, whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C.?

ii. Whether, in a charge-sheet under NDPS Act, accompanied by a field testing report which is a part of the record, can be labelled as an incomplete report, simply because it is not accompanied by a report of Chemical Analyser/FSL

iii. What is the legal efficacy of "Drug Law Enforcement, Field Officers 'Handbook' issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India?

(h) Based on the above opinion, the Registrar (Judicial-I) at Bombay, vide letter dated 22.07.2021 informed the Registrar (Judicial) at Goa that the Hon 'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to approve the constitution of Division Bench for answering the questions raised by the Hon 'ble Court (Coram : M.S. Jawalkar, J.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Bail) (Filing) No. 88/2021 and to place the same before this Division Bench for consideration.

.... .... ....

42. Therefore, on the analysis of the statutory provisions, as also the decisions that have analyzed various shades of such statutory provisions, we believe that a police report or a charge sheet containing the details specified in Section 173(2), if filed within the period prescribed under Section 167(2) is not vitiated or incomplete simply because the same was not accompanied by a CA/FSL report and, based thereon, there is no question of the accused insisting on default bail.

.... .... ....

61. In the precise context of cases under the NDPS Act, there is a long line of decisions delivered by the learned Single Judges of our Court in Suwarnkar (supra), Rafael Palafox Garcia (supra), Aleksander Kurganov (supra), Shrihari Valse (supra), and Sheikh Shabbir (supra) that have taken the view that a charge-

sheet unaccompanied by a CA/FSL report is not incomplete and therefore, where the same is filed within the prescribed period, the accused, cannot insist on default bail. These decisions according to us, reflect the legal position correctly, and therefore, we endorse them.

62. The contention similar to what is now raised was rejected in Rafael Palafox Garcia (supra). Besides, there can be no general rule that the Magistrate or the Special Court can never take cognizance of any offense under the NDPS Act in the absence of a CA/FSL report. Ultimately, that will be a matter which will have to be decided on the facts of each case by the Magistrate or the Special Court as the case may be.

63. Further, the contention that a Magistrate or the Special Court, in any NDPS case, is not even competent to take cognizance of any offense based only on a field testing report as reflected in the Panchanama or otherwise in the absence of CA/FSL report is again, too wide a proposition to commend acceptance. Ultimately a Magistrate or the Special Court will have to assess the charge sheet and, if necessary, the documents and the statements produced under Section

173(5) and thereafter decide whether any case is made out for taking cognizance of the offense.

64. For example, in Jagdish Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 270, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court after rejecting the CA/FSL report sustained the conviction by accepting the evidence of the members of the raiding party to prove that the powder which was found from the factory was methaqualone. The witnesses had stated that they had carried a kit to the field and had received sufficient training and had sufficient knowledge of narcotic substances and methods of testing them. This evidence was found sufficient to sustain a conviction even after ignoring CA/FSL report. Therefore, if a conviction could be sustained on such evidence, surely, cognizance of the offense can also be taken based on such material produced along with the charge sheet. All this will have to be assessed on a case-to-case basis and therefore, the general proposition as urged on behalf of the accused cannot be accepted.

65. There is and there can perhaps never be any dispute with the proposition that the right of a default bail in terms of Section 167(2) is a very valuable right that is now even elevated to the status of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The several decisions like M. Ravindran (supra), Rakesh Paul (supra), relied on behalf of the accused, in this regard, therefore, need not even be discussed because there is and there can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down therein. However, as was explained by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court itself in Dinesh Dalmiya (supra), such a right of default bail, although is a valuable right, the same is a conditional one. The condition precedent being pendency of the investigation. Therefore, once the investigation is complete with the filing of a police report containing the details specified under Section 173(2), the question of a claim or grant for default bail does not arise.

66. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the presentation of a police report under Section 173(2) unaccompanied by a CA/FSL report does not amount to any incomplete police report or any incomplete charge sheet/challan even in the absence of an extension of time

under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. Based thereon therefore the accused cannot insist upon a default bail.

67. Similarly, we hold that a police report under Section 173(2) or a charge sheet/challan accompanied by field testing reports as reflected in the Panchanama or otherwise also cannot be labeled as an incomplete police report/charge sheet/challan simply because the same was not accompanied by a CA/FSL report.

68. Question no. (i) and (ii) in this reference are answered accordingly.

.... .... ....

80. For all the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Drug Law Enforcement Field Officers' Handbook issued by the NCB has no legal efficacy, in the sense that the handbook has no statutory flavor or the handbook is not a set of executive instructions issued by the Central Government as contended by Mr. Gaonkar. Question No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

81. Resultantly, we answer this reference by holding the following:

(a) Question no. (i) is answered by holding that even in an NDPS case a police report containing the details prescribed under Section 173(2) Cr.

P.C. is a complete police report or a charge sheet or a challan even if it is unaccompanied by a CA/FSL report. If such police report is filed within the period stipulated under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. r/w. Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the accused cannot insist upon a default bail.

(b) Question no. (ii) is answered by holding that in an NDPS case, a charge sheet accompanied by a Geld testing report as reflected in the Panchanama or otherwise also cannot be labelled as an incomplete police report/charge sheet/challan simply because the same was not accompanied by a CA/FSL report.

(c) Question no. (iii) is answered by holding that the Drug Law Enforcement Field Officers' Handbook issued by the NCB has no legal efficacy, in the sense that the handbook has no statutory flavour or the handbook is not a set of executive instructions issued by the Central Government. "

(Emphasis Supplied)

The Division Bench in the afore-mentioned judgment has delineated

inter-play between Section 167(2) and Section 173 of the

Cr.P.C. and has finally held that even if the charge sheet is not

accompanied by a field testing report it cannot be labeled as

incomplete police report simply because it was not accompanied by

FSL report. Resultantly, the accused would not become entitled to

default bail for the reason that it was not accompanied by FSL

report.

11. The afore-quoted judgment of the Division Bench of

Bombay High Court was concerning a case of offences punishable

under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The allegations in the case at hand are for the offences as afore-

quoted. But, the stream of law that is laid down is that mere non-

filing of FSL report would not vitiate the final report nor the accused

would get entitlement of seeking enlargement on statutory/default

bail. To the charge sheet in the case at hand, except the FSL

report, every other trait has accompanied. It has accompanied the

statement of prosecutrix, her father, the birth certificate, clothes,

other medical reports of the victim as well as other incriminating

material. Though FSL report is not yet received it would not lead to

the petitioner becoming entitled to seek and be granted default bail

under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., The FSL report can be used only

to corroborate the version of the prosecution. The Court can take

cognizance of the offence on the final report filed by the Police.

Therefore, there is no gainsaying that non-filing of FSL report has

resulted in defective charge sheet and the defective charge sheet is

no charge sheet in the eye of law and, therefore, he would become

entitled to default bail. No fault can be found with the well

reasoned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge browsing

through entire spectrum of law laid down by the Apex Court and

several other High Courts. The order does not warrant any

interference, as the petitioner does not have any right to get

himself enlarged on default bail for the reason of non-filing of FSL

report.

12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands

rejected.

It is made clear that the observations made in the course of

the order is only concerning the right of accused No.1 for grant of

bail. This would not come in the way of accused No.1 seeking

regular bail from the hands of the learned Sessions Judge, which

would be considered on its own merits.