Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hargobind Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Criminal Misc. No.M-14269 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-14269 of 2014
Date of Decision: May 14, 2014
Hargobind Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present:
Present Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.KS Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
This order shall dispose of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Sections 439 and 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.4 dated 14.8.2013, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and Sections 307, 411, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar.
2. As per prosecution version, seven kgs. of heroin was allegedly recovered from co-accused Simratpal Singh on 14.8.2013. Present petitioner Hargobind Singh @ Sodhi and Surjit Singh @ Baba were alleged to have escaped from the spot at that point of time. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested subsequently on 22.8.2013.
Malik Sushama Rani2014.05.15 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-14269 of 2014 2
3. Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under its various sub-sections, the maximum period beyond which a person cannot be detained while investigation is under way has been provided and the same varies between 60 to 90 days keeping in view the gravity of offence. If the investigation is not completed within such stipulated period, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he makes an application for such purpose. However, under the Act, the maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been increased to 180 days for several categories of offences under the Act. Under Section 36-A of the Act, the period of detention may go on to a total of one year subject to satisfaction and compliance of the stringent conditions provided therein i.e. (i) upon a report of the Public Prosecutor; (ii) which in turn indicates the progress of the investigation; (iii) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days; and (iv) after notice to the accused.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 156 while dealing with the proviso inserted as clause (bb) in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of TADA which is parimateria with the proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 36-A of the Act had categorically held that even though the proviso does not specifically mandate the issuance of a notice to the accused while seeking extension yet the issuance of a notice has to be read into the provision which would be, both, in the interest of the accused, as also the Malik Sushama Rani 2014.05.15 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-14269 of 2014 3 prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the parties. Such requirement was held to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
5. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, since the investigation of the case was not completed within the stipulated period of 180 days, an application under Section 36-A of the Act was preferred by the prosecution on 7.2.2014, Annexure P2. Vide order dated 11.2.2014, Annexure P4, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar allowed the application filed under Section 36-A of the Act and granted an extension of 30 days time for completion of investigation.
6. It has gone undisputed that the petitioner moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of statutory bail on 6.3.2014 at 11.20 A.M. on account of default on the part of the investigating agency to file the police report within the extended period. It is also the conceded fact that the investigating agency filed the police report on 6.3.2014 at 12.50 P.M. i.e. after the filing of the bail application by the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.
8. In the first instance, it may be recorded that there has been a non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 36- A of the Act. The provision mandates a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation as also the specific and compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the Malik Sushama Rani 2014.05.15 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-14269 of 2014 4 accused beyond a period of 180 days. A perusal of the application preferred by the prosecution seeking extension of time under Section 36-A of the Act at Annexure P2 would reveal that the basis for seeking extension was two-fold, i.e. (i) the investigation has to cover various parts of India as also Pakistan, England and Canada and (ii) the Chemical examination report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh is yet awaited. On such application, the trial Court granted the extension of 30 days vide order dated 11.2.2014 at Annexure P4 by merely re-producing the bald averments made at the hands of the prosecution in the application seeking extension. This Court would have no hesitation in observing that the order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the trial Court granting extension of 30 days for completion of investigation was done in a routine and mechanical fashion.
9. That apart, even though the final report was submitted by the police on 6.3.2014 at 12.50 P.M., but the same would not defeat the accrued right of the petitioner inasmuch as he had already moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior in point of time.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of trial Court.
11. Petition disposed of.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
May 14, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? (Yes/No)
Malik Sushama Rani
2014.05.15 12:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document