Sampatram S/O Shri Ranaram vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 3877 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14375/2020

Sampatram S/o Shri Ranaram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Vill.
And Post Chirdhani Tehsil Pipadcity PS Pipadcity Distt. Jodhpur
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
                                                        ----Petitioner/Accused
                                   Versus
Union Of India, Through Special PP
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Bishnoi, through VC, for Mr. Chain Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

18/08/2021

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.VIII(IO)18/NCB/JZU/2019 registered at N.C.B. unit Jodhpur for

the offence under Section(s) 8/18, 25 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985').

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is

entitled for benefit of default bail in terms of mandatory provisions

contained under Section 36A (4) of the Act of 1985 inasmuch as

no valid application seeking extension of time was filed by the

competent authority before the learned Special Judge. Referring

the application dated 11.06.2020, learned counsel submitted that

it was filed by an officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau and not

by the learned Public Prosecutor as stipulated under sub-Section 4

of Section 36A of the Act of 1985. He further submitted that the

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-14375/2020]

application did not reveal any pending investigation against the

petitioner and hence, the learned Special Judge erred in allowing

the same vide its order dated 12.06.2020. Learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of

India in case of M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer (AIR 2020 SC

785) and a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in case of

Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer,

Narcotic Control Bureau and Anr. (2010 AIR SCW1909) in support

of his submission. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be

extended benefit of bail.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for Narcotics

Control Bureau opposed the prayer.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

Indisputably, the quantity of contraband recovered from

petitioner's possession is commercial and before the expiry of 180

days on 12.06.2020, the respondent Narcotics Control Bureau has

moved an application dated 11.06.2020 through Special Public

Prosecutor seeking extension of time for completion of

investigation. The application was allowed by the learned Special

Judge, after affording opportunity of filing reply and hearing to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, vide its order dated 12.06.2020.

Although, validity of order dated 12.06.2020 has not been assailed

and is not subject matter of examination by this Court, still the

contents of application dated 11.06.2020 as well as the order

dated 12.06.2020 reveal that the application was in conformity

with the provisions contained in Section 36A (4) of the Act of 1985

as it was moved by the learned Public Prosecutor. Mere presence

of the officer of Narcotics Control Bureau at the time of its

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-14375/2020]

presentation, would not render the application to be incompetent.

The learned Special Judge has, after due consideration of the

contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective

parties, allowed the application vide order dated 12.06.2020 which

has attained finality. Since, before the petitioner could acquire

indefeasible right of default bail, i.e., before the expiry of period of

180 days, the time for investigation came to be extended by the

competent Court; hence, this bail application has no merit. The

judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no

applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch

as in none of the cases, the period for investigation was extended

before the accused therein acquired indefeasible right of default

bail.

Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

DANISH USMANI /194

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)