Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an accused in an NDPS case is entitled to default bail when the challan is filed within the period of 180 days but without the chemical examiner's report, and the prosecution has not sought extension of time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
Analysis: The Court held that, in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, the prosecution can defeat the right to default bail only by moving for extension of time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act before expiry of the statutory period. A police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is complete only when it satisfies the statutory requirements and is accompanied by the documents required under Section 173(5). Where the chemical examiner's report is foundational to determine whether the alleged contraband attracts the NDPS Act, filing a challan without that report does not amount to a complete report capable of defeating the accused's right under Section 167(2). The Court distinguished the contrary precedent relied upon by the trial court on the basis that, in that case, the report had been filed within time and the statutory requirements had been met.
Conclusion: The accused had acquired an indefeasible right to default bail, and the incomplete challan did not defeat that right.