Allowed

Sadanand @ Bhui Chimulkar, Presently Lodged in Judicial Lock-Up, Sada Jail, Vasco v. State of Goa, through the Police Inspector, Anti-Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji

Bombay HC21 Dec 2010WPCR/83/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders extending the time limit for investigation without hearing the arrested petitioner. The court held that the accused must be heard as the extension affects his detention and bail rights, and set aside the orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 7/09/2010 and 3/11/2010 set aside; Special Judge directed to dispose of applications after hearing petitioner.

Sadanand @ Bhui Chimulkar, Presently Lodged in Judicial… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2010

¶3

SADANAND @ BHUI CHIMULKAR, PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL LOCK-UP, SADA JAIL, VASCO ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH THE POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI-NARCOTIC CELL POLICE STATION, PANAJI ... Respondent

¶4

Mr. Marvin D'souza, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

¶5

Coram:N. A. BRITTO, J.

¶6

Date:21st December, 2010

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard.

¶9

The petitioner was arrested on 13/01/2010 with the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 21(b) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1988. The investigations were to be completed within a period of 180 days and in case they are not completed, time can be extended up to a period of one year, in terms of the proviso below sub-section 4 of Section 36(A) of the said Act. Time was extended on 8/07/2010, 7/09/2010 and again on 3/11/2010. The petitioner has filed the bail application on 8/09/2010, but that application came to be rejected. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 7/09/2010 and 3/11/2010, extending the time to complete the investigations. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 8/07/2010, but has challenged the orders dated 7/09/2010 and 3/11/2010.

¶10

Both the orders do not show that the petitioner was heard before the extension of time granted to complete the investigations. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was notified, but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was produced before the Court and heard in the matter of extension of time to complete the investigations.

¶11

It is to be noted that the petitioner is confined to prison and only notifying him of the application would serve no useful purpose and the petitioner would be required to be heard on any order which would affect his right to bail. The proviso below sub-section 4 of Section 36(A) of the Act provides that if it is not possible to complete the investigations within the said period of 180 days, the Special Court may extend the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reason for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 180 days. As the said proviso concerns the detention of the accused and or his right to be on bail, it is but necessary that the petitioner is heard in the matter of extension of time. Since the petitioner was not heard, the impugned orders dated 7/09/2010 as well as 3/11/2010 are hereby set aside and the learned Special Judge is required to dispose of the applications filed by the Public Prosecutor only after hearing the petitioner.

¶12

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 7/09/2010 and 3/11/2010 are hereby set aside and the learned Special Judge is hereby directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the said two applications of the Public Prosecutor. It is clarified that the present detention of the petitioner will continue subject to the orders which may be passed by the learned Special Judge on the said two applications.

¶13

Petition disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh bail application, depending upon the outcome of the said orders or otherwise. Expedite authenticated copy.

¶14

N. A. BRITTO, J.

¶15

Sadanand @ Bhui Chimulkar, Presently Lodged in Judicial Lock-Up, Sada Jail, Vasco v. State of Goa, through the Police Inspector, Anti-Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand @ Bhui Chimulkar, Presently Lodged in Judicial Lock-Up, Sada Jail, Vasco v. State of Goa, through the Police Inspector, Anti-Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulochana Vaz and Anr., Vs State (through Margao Town Police Station)

Mr. Ashish Shirodkar, Presently Under Suspension Vs State through the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Shri Frank Julio Fernandes Vs the State Level Police Complaints Authority through Its Member Secretary and Anr.

Communidade De Provincia De Balli, Quepem Goa. Vs Shri Ram Dolo Velip, Quepem Goa.

Mr. Mugdam Vagengeri @ Mukdum Sab Moingiri , Presently in Judicial Lock-Up, Mapusa-Goa Vs State Rep. by Officer in Charge, Calangute Police Station

Shri. Brahmanand T. Mamlekar Vs Shri. Eknath Ashok Tari Volvoikar