Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Singh @ Babbu vs State Of Punjab on 9 July, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRM NO.M-38528 OF 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO.M-38528 OF 2012 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 09.07.2013
Raj Singh @ Babbu
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Chandumajra, Senior DAG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Raj Singh alias Babbu son of Ajmer Singh resident of Ward No. 5 backside Truck Union Maur Mandi, has applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 10 dated 15.01.2012 under Sections 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (in short "the Act"), registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.
The quantity recovered is commercial in nature and as such, the said fact need not to be narrated. However, since the petitioner is seeking bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C, only that aspect has been dealt with in the present petition.
Bhatia Shalini 2013.07.15 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM NO.M-38528 OF 2012 (O&M) -2-
The admitted facts of the case are that petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2012 with the drugs. The petitioner moved an application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C on 14.07.2012. However, the investigating agency moved an application for extension of time for concluding the investigation on 17.07.2012. The application dated 17.07.2012 of the prosecution, as well as, the application moved for grant of bail dated 14.07.2012 by the petitioner, were decided vide impugned order dated 17.10.2012. The application of bail moved by the petitioner/ accused was declined.
It is not disputed during the course of arguments that challan was presented much after 180 days. The accused/ petitioner moved an application for grant of bail on 14.07.2012.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for extension of time moved by the prosecution dated 17.07.2012, was not accompanied by the report of Public Prosecutor, which is a basic requirement. So, in view of authority "Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and Anr.,"
2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 942, the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. In authority "Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 452, it has been held that in case any indefeasible right has accrued for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., that cannot be taken away by Bhatia Shalini 2013.07.15 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM NO.M-38528 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- subsequent filing of the challan.
So, I have no hesitation in holding that since the application for extension of time was not accompanied by the report of Public Prosecutor and as such, the time for concluding the investigation cannot be extended by the trial Court.
So, in view of Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia's case (supra), the application for grant of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C, stands accepted. The petitioner Raj Singh alias Babbu is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.
JULY 09, 2013 (K. C. PURI)
shalini JUDGE
Bhatia Shalini
2013.07.15 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh