Default bail is availed on filing the application, while NDPS police reports may depend on the Chemical Examiner's report for cognizance.

In NDPS prosecutions, the Chemical Examiner's report is treated as vital material for cognizance where contraband recovery is the foundation of the case, yet the report filed in this matter was still regarded as a report under Section 173(2) and not incomplete on the governing precedent. On default bail, the statutory right under Section 167(2) is exercised when the accused files an application expressing readiness to furnish bail, not when the application is later heard. A prosecution filing made after that application does not defeat a right already availed of on filing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in an NDPS prosecution is incomplete if it is not accompanied by the Chemical Examiner's report; (ii) Whether the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is availed of when the bail application is filed or only when it is taken up for consideration.

Issue (i): Whether a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in an NDPS prosecution is incomplete if it is not accompanied by the Chemical Examiner's report.

Analysis: In prosecutions founded on recovery of alleged contraband, the nature of the seized substance is central to the prosecution case and the Chemical Examiner's report is a vital piece of material for cognizance. The Court noted divergent views from different High Courts, but followed the view that a report which omits such essential scientific material may be insufficient for cognizance in NDPS matters. At the same time, the Court held itself bound by the earlier Division Bench view that the report filed in the present case could not be treated as incomplete for the purpose of Section 173(2).

Conclusion: The police report filed on 27.05.2019 was held to be a report under Section 173(2) and the contention that it was incomplete was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is availed of when the bail application is filed or only when it is taken up for consideration.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that the statutory right to default bail arises on expiry of the prescribed period and is exercised by the accused when an application is filed expressing readiness to furnish bail. The decisive point is the filing of the application, not the later date of hearing or disposal. Subsequent filing of the report by the prosecution after such filing does not defeat the already availed right.

Conclusion: The accused avails of the right to default bail on filing the application, and not merely when the application is heard.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, but the applications for default bail were dismissed because no enforceable right to default bail was found to have accrued on the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: In default-bail matters, the accused exercises the statutory right by filing an application after expiry of the prescribed period and before the prosecution files a valid report, while the sufficiency of a police report in an NDPS case depends on the governing precedent regarding whether the report is complete without the Chemical Examiner's report.

---