2014 (2) TMI 1430 - HC - Indian Laws

Licensed Chemist Granted Bail Due to Procedural Violations in NDPS Act Case, Emphasizing Importance of Legal Compliance.

The HC granted regular bail to the petitioner, a licensed chemist accused under the NDPS Act, due to procedural noncompliance by the State. The Court ... Seeking grant of regular bail - allegation of bringing intoxicant tablets from outside and to sell them in the city - whether the tablets allegedly recovered from the petitioner and co-accused were prescription drugs or any intoxicating substance? - HELD THAT:- Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under its various sub-sections, the maximum period beyond which a person cannot be detained while investigation is under way has been provided and the same varies between 60 to 90 days keeping in view the gravity of offence. If the investigation is not completed within such stipulated period, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he makes an application for such purpose. However, under the Act, the maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been increased to 180 days for several categories of offences under the Act. Under Section 36-A of the Act, the period of detention may go on to a total of one year subject to satisfaction and compliance of the stringent conditions provided therein i.e. (i) upon a report of the Public Prosecutor; (ii) which in turn indicates the progress of the investigation; (iii) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days; and (iv) after notice to the accused. The only reason and basis cited in the application seeking extension of time for completion of investigation is that the report of the Chemical Examiner as regards the sample of the intoxicating/narcotic tablets has not been received. Solely on such premise, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Incharge of the case, has recorded a satisfaction that the Investigating Agency has made an effort to obtain the report of the Chemical Examiner and as such, on account of non-receipt of the same, further extension of a period of 180 days for completion of investigation was prayed for. There has been a noncompliance of the provisions contained in Section 36-A of the Act. The provision mandates a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation as also the specific and compelling reason for seeking the detention of the accused beyond a period of 180 days. This Court would have no hesitation in observing that the application submitted seeking extension of time for completion of investigation as also the order passed thereon by the Special Court, Patiala granting extension of 60 days have been done in a routine and mechanical fashion. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of regular bail. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, Patiala - the petition is allowed. Issues:1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 167(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 36-A of the Act regarding extension of time for investigation.3. Interpretation of the maximum detention period under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its extension under the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: The judgment concerns the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving the recovery of a significant quantity of intoxicating tablets. The petitioner, a licensed chemist, was accused of possession with intent to sell. The defense argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that any violation would fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act rather than the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The State opposed bail due to the ongoing investigation and the large quantity of tablets recovered.Issue 2: The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 36-A of the Act, which allows for an extension of the investigation period beyond the usual limits. The State sought an extension based on non-receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report. However, the Court found that the application for extension lacked essential details required by the Act, such as specific reasons for the delay and progress of the investigation. As a result, the Court held that the extension granted was done in a routine and mechanical manner, leading to noncompliance with the Act.Issue 3: The judgment delved into the interpretation of detention periods under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the extended period under the Act. It highlighted that the Act allows for an extension of up to 180 days for certain offenses, subject to stringent conditions. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural requirements, including providing compelling reasons and serving notice to the accused when seeking an extension. Failure to meet these requirements could entitle the accused to regular bail.In conclusion, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the rights of the accused during the investigation process. The judgment underscored the need for thorough adherence to legal provisions and principles of natural justice in matters involving detention and bail under criminal law.