Neeraj @ Neeru vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2932 P&H

CRR-1106-2021 (O&M)                                 -1-


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH

228                                              CRR-1106-2021 (O&M)
                                        Date of Decision: October 11, 2021

Neeraj @ Neeru

                                                               .....Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

State of Haryana

                                                           .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present : Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI. J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the

order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dated

06.07.2021 wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section

167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of default bail has

been dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

the present case the petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2021 and thereafter,

the police presented an incomplete challan on 29.06.2021 within a period

of 180 days. However, the said challan was not accompanied by the FSL

1 of 5

CRR-1106-2021 (O&M) -2-

report, hence it was incomplete. Thereafter, the FSL report was

submitted before the Court on 23.08.2021 which was beyond the period

of 180 days and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for the grant of

statutory default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. He submitted that

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa had erred in law inasmuch

as, the case of the petitioner was in fact covered by a Division Bench

judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another Vs. State of

Punjab, Criminal Revision No. No.4659 of 2015. He submitted that the

reliance was made on other judgments but they were either of the learned

Single Bench or they were not pertaining to the NDPS Act and, therefore,

the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa by

declining bail to the petitioner deserves to be set aside.

He submitted that the law with regard to the grant of default

bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. under the NDPS Act in case of

incomplete challan has been now settled by a Division Bench of this

Court in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal

Revision No.4659 of 2015. He submitted that admittedly the challan was

not accompanied by the FSL report and, therefore, the challan was

incomplete and thereafter, the FSL report was filed after the expiry of 180

days and, therefore his case is covered by a Division Bench judgment of

this Court. Furthermore, the prosecution had not filed any application

seeking extension of 180 days. He has prayed that the order passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa be set aside and he may be

2 of 5

CRR-1106-2021 (O&M) -3-

released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, learned

Additional Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that so far as the

factual position is concerned with regard to filing of challan without FSL

report is correct. He further submitted that the FSL report was filed after

the expiry of 180 days and no application for extension of time was filed.

He submitted that the FSL report could not be filed in time due to the

procedural hassles due to Covid-19 pandemic and has stated that a reply

has been filed by the State in this regard.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was admittedly arrested on 03.01.2021 and the

challan was filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. on 29.06.2021 which was

within a period of 180 days but without FSL report. The FSL report was

filed after 180 days on 23.08.2021. Admittedly, there was no application

for extension of 180 days. The law in this regard has been settled by a

Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another Vs.

State of Punjab(Supra). The relevant portion of the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another Vs.

State of Punjab(Supra) is reproduced as under:-

"For this reason as well, it is essential that the report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best be termed to be an incomplete challan depriving the Magistrate of relevant material take cognizance and if it is not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it would essentially result in a

3 of 5

CRR-1106-2021 (O&M) -4-

default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court.

We emphasize on the stringent aspect of the N.D.P.S. Act which would compellingly persuade us to take the aforesaid view. Without determining the nature and content of the contraband, it would be draconian to propel an accused into the throes of a trial. The liberty of an individual would constantly be imperiled at the hands of dubious officials of the police who may venture to falsely implicate a person.

It is for this reason that we would unhesitatingly conclude that the Chemical Examiner's report is an essential; integral and inherent part of the investigation under the N.D.P.S. Act as it would lay the foundation of an accused's culpability without which a Magistrate would not be enabled to form an opinion and take cognizance of the accused's involvement in the commission of offence under the Act.

We are conscious of the fact that these issues have arisen largely on account of the inability of the State to provide the Chemical Examiner's report in time ostensibly for the reason that it is not equipped with enough laboratories to examine the contraband but for that, it is the State which has to be faulted and it would do well to hone up its own infrastructure so that the accused who deserves punishment, does not get the benefit of law and go scot free and gain access to a undeserving liberty."

In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order

dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa

is hereby set aside. The present petition is therefore allowed. The

4 of 5

CRR-1106-2021 (O&M) -5-

petitioner is entitled to a Statutory right of default bail under Section

167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner shall be

released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty

Magistrate.

                                           (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
October 11, 2021                                   JUDGE
rakesh

              Whether speaking/reasoned.       :      Yes/No
              Whether Reportable.              :      Yes/No




                                 5 of 5