Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 28.06.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 July, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. MP (M) No. 2532 of 2023
Reserved on : 28.06.2024
Decided on : 12.07.2024
___________________________________________________
Rohit Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Raj Negi and Mr. Puneet
Rajta, Additional Advocates
General with Ms. Niyati Thakur,
Deputy Advocate General.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral)
By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 36/2023, dated 01.02.2023, under Sections 21, 22 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS2 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) and Sections 181, 184, 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act .
(hereinafter referred to as "MV" Act), registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 31.01.2023, at about 5:20 P.M., while the police party was on routine patrolling duty and present at place Jachh, they received a secret information that a black Verna car bearing registration No. PB-02-EE-2607 was coming from Fatehpur side and going towards Jassur side, in which, two occupants namely Vishal Kumar and Rohit Kumar were travelling alongwith huge quantity of chitta/heroin and cash. Accordingly, the police party, associated Atul Sharma as independent witness in the proceedings and laid a nakka. Around 6:00 P.M., the aforesaid car was seen going towards Jassur Main Chowk, which was signaled to stop but its driver did not stop the car, hit the barricade and tried to run away from the spot.
However, due to the impact of hitting, the car did not start and the police party managed to get hold of the persons sitting in the car. Since there was a traffic jam on the spot on account of road construction work, the car was towed and brought near ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 3 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) the police assistance room, Jassur. In the meantime, SDM .
Nurpur Sh. Gursimran and Tehsildar Nurpur Sh. Sandeep Kumar reached the spot and were associated as independent witnesses in the proceedings. In presence of the aforesaid witnesses, the occupants of the car disclosed their names as Vishal Kumar and Rohit Kumar (petitioner herein). During search of the car, underneath the co-driver seat, a handbag was found. On opening the same, a packet, containing two transparent polythene packets was found. When the said packets were opened and checked, in one packet a grey coloured solid substance and in another packet white and grey coloured substance in the form of powder was recovered, which was found to be chitta/heroin. Thereafter, the police recovered another polythene packet, which was kept on the rear foot mat of the car, in which, the currency notes were kept. The police party also checked the dashboard of the car and recovered a bowl, a steel spoon, a mini electronic weighing machine, empty transparent polythene packets, rubber bands and 7 strips of Alprazolam IP 0.5 mg, out of which, 5 strips containing 15 tablets each and two strips ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 4 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) containing 13 and 12 tablets, respectively were sealed. On .
weighment, the recovered heroin was found to be 1.100 Kgs, whereas, a sum of Rs. 13,20,330/- was also recovered from the petitioner and co-accused. After completion of necessary codal formalities, FIR detailed hereinabove was registered against the petitioner and co-accused and they were arrested on 01.02.2023. r
3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the chargesheet in the present case has been presented before the learned trial Court without completing the investigation of the case, just to deprive his right to default bail, as the charge sheet was filed without CDR, CAF and IPDR reports and thus, even if filed within the statutory period of 180 days, as provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, it is an incomplete Charge Sheet and on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to be released on default bail.
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS5 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate .
General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the recovery of huge quantity of chitta/heroin, as well as cash effected at the instance of the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He also argued that the, Charge Sheet was filed within a period of 180 days, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case .
6. The case of the petitioner is that the charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer but CDR, CAF and IPDR reports were not filed and that is how, incomplete charge sheet has been submitted by the investigating officer as such he is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the right of a default bail in terms of Section 167(2) is a very valuable right that is now even elevated to the status of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, as was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Dalmiya ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 6 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) vs C.B.I., (2007) 8 SCC 770 such a right of default bail, .
although is a valuable right, the same is a conditional one. The condition precedent being pendency of the investigation.
Therefore, once the investigation is complete with the filing of a police report containing the details specified under Section 173(2), the question of a claim or grant for default bail does not arise. The Apex Court further held that though ordinarily all documents should accompany the charge sheet but even if all documents have not been filed, the same would not vitiate filing of the same. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"22. It is true that ordinarily all documents accompany the charge sheet. But, in this case, some documents could not be filed which were not in the possession of the CBI and the same were with the GEQD. As indicated hereinbefore, the said documents are said to have been filed on 20.01.2006 whereas the appellant was arrested on 12.02.2006. Appellant does not contend that he has been prejudiced by not filing of such documents with the charge sheet. No such plea in fact had been taken. Even if all the documents had not been filed, by reason thereof submission of charge sheet itself does not become vitiated in law. The charge sheet has been acted upon as an order of cognizance had been passed on the basis thereof. Appellant has not questioned the said order taking cognizance of the offence. Validity of the said charge sheet is also not in question.
.....................::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS
7 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
25. Such a right of bail although is a valuable right but the same is a conditional one; the condition precedent .
being pendency of the investigation. Whether an investigation in fact has remained pending and the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet only with a view to curtail the right of the accused would essentially be a question of fact. Such a question strictly does not arise in this case inasmuch as, according to the CBI, sufficient materials are already available for prosecution of the appellant. According to it, further investigation would be inter alia necessary on certain vital points including end use of the funds."
7. The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2023 and charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2023, i.e. within the statutory period of 180 days. The charge sheet was filed admittedly without CDR, CAF and IPDR reports enclosed to the said charge sheet. The main question which falls for determination before this court is as to whether the presentation of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. by the police without CDR, CAF and IPDR reports amounts to incomplete chargesheet and in the absence of any extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?
8. To consider the said question, it would be relevant to refer to Sections 167 and 173 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act.
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS8 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
9. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 of the .
Cr.P.C. read as follows:-
"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.--
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-
four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is wellfounded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-
inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that--
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding -::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS
9 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, .
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.
Explanation I.--For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.
Explanation II.--If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 10 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.
.
Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution."
10. In terms of Section 167 (2)(a) of the Cr.P.C., an accused will be entitled to bail in the event the final report is not filed within 90 days from the date on which the accused was sent to judicial custody. Filing of charge sheet is dealt with under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:
"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.--(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(1A) The investigation in relation to rape of a child may be completed within three months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating--
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS
11 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
(c) the names of the persons who
appear to be acquainted with the circumstances .
of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C 2 [376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report--
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS12 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other .
than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2)."
11. Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. (supra) deals with filing of final report by the Police after investigation.
Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that once ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 13 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) investigation is completed the officer in-charge of a Police .
Station shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on the final report, indicating the factors that are narrated in sub-section (2) of Section 173. Section 173(5) mandates that when such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the Police Officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report all documents or relevant extract thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely on, other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
deals with power of the Magistrate to direct further investigation to be conducted in a given case. Therefore, it is open for the Police to conduct further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. This is the frame work on which release of bail of an accused and filing of charge sheet are dealt with. It is these that are germane to be noticed in the case at hand.
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS14 ( 2024:HHC:5084 )
12. Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act reads as .
under:-
"In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A of for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub- section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminial Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days":
Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extent the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days."
13. In a recent judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Another, (2024) 3 SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there cannot be any disagreement with the well-settled legal proposition that right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not only a statutory right but a right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an indefeasible right, nonetheless it is ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 15 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) enforceable only prior to filing of the challan or the .
Charge Sheet, after which the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to merits of the case, under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused, post the filing of the Charge Sheet.
The bone of contention between the rival parties before the Supreme Court was whether the Charge Sheet filed by the CBI during ongoing investigation qua other Respondents could be treated as a complete Charge Sheet. Referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the Supreme Court held that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is an intimation to the Court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the Court to inquire into the offence and necessary information is being sent to ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 16 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) the Court. It is not necessary that all details of the offence .
must be stated. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the Charge Sheet, nonetheless, if for some reasons, all documents are not filed, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the Charge Sheet, as the Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once, from the material produced along with Charge Sheet, Court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is pending or not.
Pendency of further investigation for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of the Charge Sheet would neither vitiate the Charge Sheet nor entitle the accused to seek default bail on that ground, as a matter of right. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment are as follows:-
"21. In our opinion, the Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India has aptly explained the scope of Section 173(2).::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS
17 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) "76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) .
of the CrPC. The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar [(1980) 3 SCC 152, 157 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 660] that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 18 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence .
are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In view of the above settled legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5). As settled in the afore-stated case, it is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated.
23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-
section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub- section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is also ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 19 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the .
material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete rchargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In Sanjay Kumar Pundeer vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC Online Del 5696, it was observed that there is a distinction between filing a Charge Sheet and obtaining an expert opinion. Charge Sheet is filed upon completion of investigation after Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused for offences under which the FIR has been registered while any other scientific examination report is only corroborative in nature to the material collected by the IO and filed with the Charge ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 20 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) Sheet. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as .
under :-
"18. In the present case, the investigation qua the applicant was complete at the time the first chargesheet was filed, as regards the offences mentioned in the FIR, on 02.12.2021. At the time of filing of the first chargesheet, there was sufficient material on record qua the applicant such as statements of eyewitnesses and other material evidence collected and placed on record. Mere non-filing of the FSL Report is not sufficient to conclude that the chargesheet filed in the present case was incomplete. The said report can be filed by way of a supplementary chargesheet. In any case, the case of the prosecution is primarily based on the eye witness account of the complainant. The FSL report, if any, would be a corroborative piece of evidence. As pointed out hereinabove, even after the filing of the chargesheet, further investigation can continue under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The opinion of the expert can always be filed before the learned Trial Court by way of supplementary chargesheet. It is further pertinent to note that in the present case, the learned Trial Court had taken the cognizance after the chargesheet was filed and the said order was not challenged by the petitioner.
xxx xxx xxx
20. In view of the observations made in Judgebir Singh (supra) and Syed Maqbool (supra), it is noted that the chargesheet filed in the present case satisfies the conditions contained in sub- clause (a) to (d) of Section 173(2)(i). There is a distinction between filing of a chargesheet and obtaining an expert opinion. The chargesheet is filed upon completion of investigation after the ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 21 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute an accused for offences .
under which the FIR has been registered. The FSL report or any other scientific examination would only be corroborative in nature to the material collected by the Investigating Officer and filed alongwith the chargesheet. Collection of a report of the FSL or a scientific expert, would therefore, be covered under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The proposition also finds support from a judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in Suraj v. State of Delhi NCT, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3501. In the said case, in an application for default bail in a case under Sections 377/34 of the IPC, while taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 153 and Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain (supra), the coordinate bench observed and held as under:
"13. In the instant case, the Petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2021. Chargesheet was filed on 14.10.2021, i.e. within the period prescribed by the statutory provision. The material on record indicates that cognizance had not been taken by the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that certain clarifications were required with respect to an FSL report which was pending as well as a video recording of the offences allegedly being committed that had been mentioned by the victim child in his Section 164 Cr. P.C. statement. On 16.12.2021, the Investigating Officer had informed the Ld. Trial Court that further investigation would be conducted and that a supplementary chargesheet would be filed in that regard.
14. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the Petitioner can be convicted on the basis of the testimony of the victim, and ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 22 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) the video recording can be collected and filed by way of a supplementary .
chargesheet and that filing of a chargesheet would entail completion of investigation and that the right to default bail under Section 167 (2) CrPC would not survive. Further, flowing from the judgments of the Supreme Court that have been discussed above, cognizance of the Ld. Trial Court is immaterial to the compliance of Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. This Court is of the opinion that as the chargesheet had been filed well within the time period as stipulated under Section 167(2), the Petitioner is no longer entitled to his right to seek default bail."
15. Thus in view of the aforementioned judgments, mere non-filing of CDR, CAF and IPDR reports along with the charge sheet is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the charge sheet filed was incomplete. Needless to state that even after filing of the charge sheet, further investigation can continue under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. It is not that after completion of investigation of the case and presentation of final report before the Magistrate, the investigating agency is precluded from collecting further evidence and producing it before the Competent Court and therefore, it may not be correct to hold that merely because an expert report ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 23 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) does not accompany the final report, the Charge Sheet is .
defective or incomplete. If the Charge Sheet contains details required under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and is filed within the period prescribed, it cannot be termed as incomplete, in the absence of CDR, CAF and IPDR reports. The CDR, CAF and IPDR reports , if any, would only be a corroborative piece of evidence. The petitioner does not get a right to default bail merely because the Charge Sheet/Final Report filed by the police after investigation is without CDR, CAF and IPDR reports.
16. In the present case, the perusal of the record reveals that the contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle in question was sent to SFSL, Junga and report thereof has been received. The report regarding specimen handwriting and diaries has also been received. The Charge Sheet was filed within a period of 180 days and this is an admitted fact on behalf of the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that the investigating agency has completed the investigation and was only awaiting CDR, CAF and IPDR reports which ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS 24 ( 2024:HHC:5084 ) were only to be considered as an expert opinion/scientific .
conclusion. The Charge Sheet without annexing CDR, CAF and IPDR reports cannot be termed as defective or incomplete. Therefore, no right of default bail is accrued in favour of the petitioner and this court finds no reason to release the petitioner on default bail. Hence, there is no merit in this bail application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge July 12, 2024 (raman) ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:36:15 :::CIS