Partly allowed

Mr. Virkkunen Olli Petterio v. State of Goa through Officer-in-Charge

Bombay HC1 Feb 2011CRMAB/17/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the NDPS Court order granting extension of time for filing charge-sheet due to lack of hearing. It rematched the bail application to the Special Judge for re-adjudication and rejected interim bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time granted by the NDPS Court is set aside; bail application to be re-examined by Special Judge; interim bail prayer rejected.

Mr. Virkkunen Olli Petterio Vs State of Goa through… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 17 OF 2011.

¶4

Mr. Virkkunen Olli Petterio, Passport No. 52991597, Major 32 years, Swedish National, Presently in Sub-Jail Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. … Applicant

¶5

V/s STATE OF GOA, Through Officer-in-Charge, Anjuna Police Station, Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. … Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Peter D'Souza, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

¶8

A. P. Lavande, J.

¶9

Dated : 1.02.2011

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Heard Mr. P. D'Souza, learned Counsel for the applicant and

¶12

Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

The applicant was arrested on the allegations of having

¶15

been found in possession of 70 gms Charas, 0.8 gms LSD, 14 gms LSD liquid and 5 gms Cocaine. On 10.1.2010 F.I.R. No. 10/2010 was filed at Anjuna police station for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii)(A), 21(A), 22(C) of the NDPS Act,1985. Before the period of expiry of 180 days stipulated under Section 36 A (4) of the Act, the respondent sought extension of time to file charge sheet which was granted. Again on 1.11.2010, the respondent sought further extension of time for filing charge sheet by 60 days which was granted.

¶16

Thereafter on 27.12.2010 the applicant filed bail application seeking release on bail inter alia on the ground that the applicant was not heard before granting extension of time by learned NDPS Court. The application was opposed by the respondent. On 31.12.2010 the NDPS Court dismissed the bail application. Thereafter, it appears that on 4.1.2011 the respondent filed charge sheet without the report of Chemical Analyst .

¶17

As stated above, one of the grounds urged by the

¶18

¶19

¶20

applicant in support of the plea is that the learned NDPS Court did not give an opportunity to be heard to the applicant before granting extension of time of 60 days to file charge sheet before passing order dated 1.11.2010.

¶21

Mr. D' Souza, learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated

¶22

the submissions made before the Special Judge, before me. The prayer for bail has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶23

Criminal Application (Bail) No. 263/2010 Mr. David

¶24

Driham @ Dudu Vs. State of Goa was disposed of by me by order dated 18.1.2011. In almost similar facts, while disposing the bail application, I set aside the order granting extension of time on the ground that the applicant in the said case was not heard before granting extension of time in terms of Section 36(A)(4) of the Act and further directed the learned Special judge to give an opportunity of being heard to the applicant therein and pass an order. It was further directed that in the event the learned Special judge holds that the order granting extension of time was patently illegal, the learned Special Judge to pass an order granting bail to the applicant on such terms and

¶25

¶26

conditions as he deems fit and proper.

¶27

Since the facts in the present case are almost identical

¶28

with the facts in Criminal Application (Bail) No. 263/2010, I propose to dispose of the present application in similar terms.

¶29

In view of the above, the order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the learned NDPS Court granting extension of time is set aside. The learned Special Judge to decide the application afresh in the light of the findings given and the observations made in Criminal Application (Bail) No. 263/2010 not withstanding the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the meantime. The applicant shall be ordered to be produced before the learned Special Judge on the date fixed for hearing. After considering all the contentions of the applicant herein and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the prosecution, the learned Special Judge shall pass order on the said application dated 1.11.2010 without being influenced by the observations made and findings given in the order dated 31.12.2010 passed in Special Bail Application No. 77/2010 filed by the applicant. In the event the learned Special judge holds that the order granting extension of time was patently illegal, the learned Special Judge shall pass an order

¶30

¶31

granting bail to the applicant on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper. The applicant shall continue to be in custody till the order is passed by the learned Special Judge.

¶32

Considering that the applicant has been in custody from 9.1.2010, the learned Special Judge shall decide the application dated 1.11.2010 expeditiously and in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Needless to mention that all the contentions of the applicant are kept open.

¶33

At this stage, Mr. D' Souza, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant be released on interim bail till the application is decided by the Special Judge in terms of the order passed by this Court today. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant the prayer and hence the prayer

¶34

is rejected.

¶35

A. P. LAVANDE, J.

¶36

MF/-

Mr. Virkkunen Olli Petterio v. State of Goa through Officer-in-Charge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Virkkunen Olli Petterio v. State of Goa through Officer-in-Charge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Peter Paul Clement Almeida Vs Mr. Rajaram Shantaram Salgaokar (Since Dec.) through Lr'S

Vinal Vishvanath Diukar Vs State through Officer-in-Charge and 2 Ors.

Mr. Rohit Diukar Vs State through Officer-in-Charge of Calangute Police Station

M/S. Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited, through Power of Attorney Holder Mr. H. Mohandas Vs All Goa Manipal Finance Group of Companies Creditors Association and 5 Ors.

Smt.Rukmini a.Joshi and 14 Ors., Vs Shri Somnath N.Sawant Desai and 24 Ors.

Shri Harishchandra Panglo Gaonkar and 5 Ors., Vs Shri Shambu Dacu Salelkar and 2 Ors.