Manipur High Court
Mst. Jahan vs State Of Manipur on 16 January, 2023
LAIRENM Digitally
by
signed
Item No. 29
AYUM INDRAJEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJE SINGH
Date: 2023.01.17
ET SINGH 09:41:10 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
CRIL.PETN. No. 49 of 2022
Mst. Jahan, 40 years, W/o Md. Khamba of Khurai Khomidok, P.S. Heingang,
District Imphal East, Manipur;
- On behalf of accused, Md. Sahir Khan, aged about 35 years, S/o
(L) Md. Abdul Rashid, R/o Khurai Khomidok, P.S. Heingang, District
Imphal East, Manipur, Pin Code No. 795114.
....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Manipur, represented by Secretary, Home, Government of
Manipur, stationed at Old Secretariat, Bapupara, District, Imphal West:
Pin. No. 795001.
2. Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal Police Station at Thoubal District, Thoubal,
Manipur, NH 102, Pin Code: 794138.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
16.01.2023
By way of this criminal petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner assails the orders dated 20.09.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed by the
learned Special Judge (ND & PS), Thoubal, in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No. 298 of 2022
and Cril. Misc.(B) Case No. 323 of 2022 respectively. Both these miscellaneous
cases were filed by the State of Manipur in relation to F.I.R. No. 67(03) 2022 on
the file of Thoubal Police Station, registered under Sections 21(c), 29 & 60(3)
of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner's
brother is arrayed as the accused in the said F.I.R.
Heard Mr. M. Ibotombi, learned counsel for the petitioner; and
Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned PP, appearing for the State.
The subject FIR was registered in connection with the alleged seizure
of 50 soap cases containing suspected brown sugar from the possession of the
petitioner's brother. The petitioner's brother was arrested on 25.03.2022, viz.,
the day on which the F.I.R. was registered. Admittedly, a charge-sheet was not
filed within the stipulated extended period of 180 days, in terms of Section
36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The
petitioner's brother thereupon applied for statutory default bail, vide Cril. Misc.
(B) Case No. 323 of 2022. It is stated that it was only when bail was denied to
him, vide order dated 23.09.2022, that he came to know that extension had
been granted by the learned Special Judge for completing the investigation
within 1 year, vide order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No. 298
of 2022. It is against these two orders that the petitioner raised a challenge on
behalf of her brother, as his next friend, by way of this criminal petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Mr. M. Ibotombi, learned counsel, would contend that the petitioner's
brother was not even produced before the learned Special Judge at the time of
the hearing of Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 298 of 2022, whereby time for completing
the investigation was extended. He would point out that this aspect was
specifically raised by the learned counsel for the accused during the hearing of
the bail application in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 323 of 2022 but despite the same,
the learned Special Judge brushed it aside and dismissed the bail application.
He would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jigar @
Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal
No. 1656 of 2022 and batch, decided on 23.09.2022). Therein, the
Supreme Court was dealing with extension of time for completing the
investigation in relation to offences under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and
Organized Crime Act, 2015. The stipulated period for completing such
investigation in the ordinary course was 180 days, akin to the time stipulated in
relation to offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985. The time for completing investigation was extended by the Special Court
without the accused being presented before it. In that context, the Supreme
Court noted that the accused would be entitled to oppose the grant of extension
of time, in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt
Vs. State, through CBI, Bombay [(1994) 5 SCC 410]. The Supreme Court
held that the orders extending the period of investigation were rendered illegal
by the failure of the authorities to produce the accused before the Special Court,
either physically or virtually, when the prayer for grant of extension made by
the Public Prosecutor was considered.
Significantly, the Superintendent of Police. Thoubal District, conceded
in his affidavit-in-opposition dated 06.12.2022 that the presence of the accused
was not procured either physically or through video conference on 20.09.2022,
when the application for extension of time for completing the investigation was
considered by the learned Special Judge (ND & PS), Thoubal.
In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, referred to
supra, this failure on the part of the prosecution is sufficient to render
unsustainable the extension of time granted by the learned Special Judge (ND
& PS), Thoubal, vide order dated 20.09.2022. In consequence, rejection of the
default bail application filed by the accused in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 323 of
2022, on the ground that extension of time had already been granted for
completing the investigation, also cannot stand.
The orders dated 20.09.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed by the learned
Special Judge (ND & PS), Thoubal, in Cril. Misc. (B) Case Nos. 298 & 323 of
2022 respectively, are accordingly set aside and both the miscellaneous cases
are restored to the file of the learned Special Judge (ND&PD), Thoubal, for
consideration afresh in accordance with law, duly abiding by the mandate of
affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before considering the plea
of the prosecution for extending the time to complete the investigation. The bail
application filed by the accused shall also be considered simultaneously.
Cril. Petn. No. 49 of 2022 is accordingly allowed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
