Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nardev Inder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Criminal Misc. No.M-3339 of 2014 /1/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-3339 of 2014
Date of Decision: February 04, 2014
Nardev Inder Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present:
Present Mr.RS Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Dilpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
This order shall dispose of the instant petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.61 dated 19.6.2013, under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act'), registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, Patiala.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the police party standing near Bus Stand on Rajpura Patiala Road received secret information on 9.6.2013 that Nardev Inder Singh and Gurinder Singh were bringing intoxicant tablets from outside and to sell them in the city. Accordingly, an Activa Scooter bearing registration No.PB- Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.06 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No.M-3339 of 2014 /2/
11-AP-3538 was spotted and was stopped. Two persons riding
the Scooter were apprehended and the person driving the Scooter disclosed his name as Nardev Inder Singh and the pillion rider disclosed his name Gurinder Singh @ Lucky. Further allegations, as per FIR, are that after completion of codal formalities, search of the Scooter was conducted and from the dicky, 25980 intoxicating tablets were recovered.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a licenced Chemist having his own proprietary Firm in the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Medical Agency. The said Firm is stated to have a registered licence issued by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Punjab and the validity of which extends upto 31.12.2016. As such learned counsel would argue that the petitioner at the most could have been tried for a violation under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
4. Learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the present petition for grant of regular bail by contending that a huge quantity of intoxicating tablets to the extent of 26000 approximately stand recovered from the petitioner as also co- accused and that the investigation is still under way. Learned State counsel submits that vide order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Special Court, Patiala, an application filed under Section 36-A of the Act seeking extension of time to complete investigation has been allowed and 60 days' time has been granted for completion of investigation and for presentation of the final report. It is contended on behalf of the State that under such Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.06 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-3339 of 2014 /3/ circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the prayer made in the present petition deserves to be accepted.
6. The question as to whether the tablets allegedly recovered from the petitioner and co-accused were prescription drugs or any intoxicating substance, would be a matter of investigation. Be that as it may, 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.
Malik Sushama Rani2014.02.06 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Misc. No.M-3339 of 2014 /4/
7. 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 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.
8. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, the investigation in the matter has not been completed and the maximum period of 180 days already stand lapsed on 17.12.2013. It has not been disputed by the learned State counsel that no notice had been served upon the accused, the present petitioner, as regards the application seeking extension of time. Even otherwise, the application, so submitted, has been produced before the Court during the course of hearing and the same has been perused. The only reason and basis cited in the application seeking extension of time for completion of investigation is that the report of the Chemical Examiner as regards the sample of the intoxicating/narcotic tablets has not been received. Solely on such premise, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Incharge of the case, has recorded a satisfaction that the Investigating Agency has made an effort to obtain the report Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.06 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-3339 of 2014 /5/ of the Chemical Examiner and as such, on account of non-receipt of the same, further extension of a period of 180 days for completion of investigation was prayed for.
9. In my considered view, 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 reason for seeking the detention of the accused beyond a period of 180 days. This Court would have no hesitation in observing that the application submitted seeking extension of time for completion of investigation as also the order passed thereon by the Special Court, Patiala granting extension of 60 days have been done in a routine and mechanical fashion. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of regular bail.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, Patiala.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
February 04, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? (Yes/No)
Malik Sushama Rani
2014.02.06 12:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document