Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh @ Motta vs State Of Punjab on 4 September, 2014
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Crl. Misc. No.M-27594 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-27594 of 2014
Date of decision : 04.09.2014
Bhupinder Singh alias Motta
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
The petitioner was arrested for keeping in his possession 350 grams of intoxicant regarding which an FIR was registered on 05.01.2014 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The investigating agency could not complete the investigation of the aforesaid case within the stipulated period of 180 days. The period of 180 days was to expire on 04.07.2014. An application for extension was filed on 13.06.2014 but kept pending, meanwhile the period of filing the challan expired. The accused moved an application seeking bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2014. The bail application as well as the application for extension of time was decided on 07.07.2014 by the Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran.
The application filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that the time had been extended by three SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No.M-27594 of 2014 2 months. The application seeking extension was allowed and three months' time was given but from the date of the passing of the order i.e. 07.07.2014. The Special Judge was aware of the fact that the extension could not be given retrospectively and therefore, gave the extension from the date of the order. Reference may be made to Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi V. State, GNCTD and others 2013 AIR (SC) (Cri) 10.
The petitioner had applied for bail on 05.07.2014. By then no extension had been granted. An indefeasible right had accrued to the petitioner. The Special Judge had granted the extension but not retrospectively. The State though had approached the Court well within time but it appears that the case was adjourned by the Court well beyond 180 days and thereby the benefit accrued to the petitioner. The accused had applied for bail on the expiry of period of 180 days. The adjournment granted by the Court was not appropriate. The Court was obliged to deal with the application before the period expired. Since, it had failed to do so, the benefit of default provision as engrafted under Section 167(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. accrued to the petitioner.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) 04.09.2014 JUDGE sunil SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document