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

....te 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 an application seeking further time to complete ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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, would not, in my opinion, be applicable on all fours, to the present case. 8. Mr. Rajbir Singh argued his cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 other litigation against the accused therein, the reason for seeking extension of time was non-receipt of the rep....