2014 (1) TMI 1946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 100 ml each having Chlorpheniramine Malteate IP-4mg. and Codeine Phosphate IP-10 mg. was allegedly recovered from him in addition to 70 pouches of Momotil tablets, containing 100 tablets in each. 3. Other than alleging that the FIR itself has been falsely registered, the petitioner is seeking grant of bail invoking Section 167 (ii) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. The statutory period of 180 days as provided under Section 36- A(4) of the Act of 1985, having been expired without any "challan having been presented", the petitioner filed an application under Section 167 (ii) Cr.P.C. before the Special Court on 28.10.2013 which declined the application on 31.10.2013 on the ground that the police had moved....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unjab in CRM-M No.36059 of 2012. In Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi (supra), statutory bail was held to have been admissible to the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the fact that his right for grant of such bail accrued before the prosecution moved an application for extension of time to submit the charge-sheet. 7. In the present case of course, the application by the prosecution was moved prior to the petitioner having filed his application under Section 167(ii) Cr.P.C., the Additional Public Prosecutors' application having been filed on 23.10.2013 or a day thereafter, the petitioners' application having been filed on 28.10.2013 as already mentioned above, hence the ratio of the law laid down in that case, woul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anted statutory bail, time having been extended by the learned trial Court. However, a reading of Kedias' case shows that it was held to the contrary therein. After noticing the reply of the Public Prosecutor, enumerated in an earlier judgment, of Hitender Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Mahrashtra, 1994 (3) RCR (Crl.) 156, their Lordships, in Sanjay Kumar Kedias' case (supra), held that even though the application was moved by the public prosecutor, it was actually an application moved by the investigating officer and does not even remotely indicate any application of mind on the part of the public prosecutor. Obviously, this observation is in view of the fact that in that application, apart from giving the history of the case and....