Juned Alias Kanha vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17316 P&H

233
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                           CRR No.2202 of 2022
                                           Date of Decision: 20.12.2022


Juned alias Kanha
                                                                ..... Petitioner

                                        versus

State of Haryana
                                                              ..... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:    Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

                   ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

for setting aside the order dated 03.09.2022 by which the application filed

by the petitioner for grant of default bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.

has been dismissed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Faridabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a

case where the petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2022 and allegation

against him was with regard to confiscation of 21 Buprenorphine

injections (2ml each) total 42 ml, 21 Avil Injections containing 10ml each

total 210 ml, four needles, one syringe, five used syringes, 32 empty

covers of Buprenorphine injections, 28 empty bottles of Avil was

effected from the petitioner. He was produced for the first time before the

1 of 4

learned Court on 12.02.2022 and since the alleged quantity falls within the

category of commercial quantity, the total period for the presentation of

challan was 180 days, in view of Section 167 sub-section 2 of Cr.P.C. read

with Section 36A of NDPS Act. The said period of 180 days expired on

11.08.2022. However, before expiry of the aforesaid period of 180 days,

the police presented the challan on 11.04.2022 but the challan was

incomplete challan because it was not accompanied by the FSL report. He

submitted that no extension application has been filed by the prosecution

in the present case and, therefore, after the expiry of 180 days, the

petitioner was entitled for the grant of default bail especially in view of

the law laid down by the division Bench of this Court in "Ajit Singh @

Jeeta and another vs. State of Punjab", CRR No.4659 of 2015, decided

on 30.11.2018. He submitted that even till date, the FSL report has not

been received and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad is perverse and in violation of the

law laid down by this Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra).

In compliance of order dated 01.12.2022, status report by

Vinod Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mujesar,

Faridabad along with Annexures on behalf of the respondent-State has

been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. Copy of the same has

been supplied to the counsel opposite.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana, has submitted that

so far as the aforesaid dates are concerned, the same are correct and it is

also correct that the period of 180 days had expired on 11.08.2022

and the challan was presented, which was without FSL report, because

2 of 4

even till date FSL report has not been received. He has further referred to

the affidavit filed by the State in which it has been stated that no

application for grant of extension of time was moved by the prosecution.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is a case, where the petitioner is seeking default bail under

Section 167 sub-section (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of the NDPS

Act. The aforesaid dates are not disputed by the learned State counsel. It

is, therefore, apparent that till the expiry of 180 days, the police did not

present a complete challan and the challan which was presented on

11.04.2022 was an incomplete challan without FSL report and as per

learned State counsel, the FSL report has not been received even till date.

The law in this regard has been discussed and laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra). The relevant portion of

the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

"25. 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., 1973 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 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."

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual position and the

law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh's case

(supra), this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the present petition.

3 of 4

Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad is hereby set aside and quashed.

The petitioner shall be entitled for the grant of default bail under Section

167 sub-section (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act and

he shall be released on default bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate of the concerned area.

                                          (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
                                                   JUDGE
20.12.2022
rittu

        Whether speaking/reasoned:             Yes/No
        Whether reportable:                    Yes/No




                                4 of 4