Single judge allowed bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to the investigating agency's failure to submit the challan within 60 days while the offence appeared to involve non-commercial quantity of opium.
Petitioner released on bail during the trial to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M No.19493 of 2010
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
CRM-M No.19493 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.02.2011
Ishwar Jat
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondents.
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Present: Mr. Arti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State.
Alok Singh, J (Oral).
This is an application seeking regular bail in case FIR No.61 dated 27.4.2010 under Sections 18/61of NDPS Act, P.S. Sadar Malout, Ludhiana, District Muktsar.
Undisputedly, petitioner was arrested on 27.4.2010 and was produced before the Court on 28.4.2010 and was sent in judicial custody on 28.4.2010. Undisputedly, petitioner has moved bail application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 28.6.2010. Undisputedly, challan was submitted in the case on 5.7.2010.
CRM-M No.19493 of 2010
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per prosecution story, 2.5 Kgs opium was said to be recovered from the petitioner. She further argued that as per the Central Government Gazette Notification, at Sr. No.92, commercial quantity of opium is shown to be 2.5 Kgs. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in view of Section 2(viia), commercial quantity would mean the quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Gazette Notification. She has placed reliance on the judgement of the Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ratto Vs. State of H.P., 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 501 and in the case of Mander Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 and has argued that any quantity more than 2.5 Kgs would be commercial quantity and upto 2.5 Kgs, it would not be a commercial quantity, hence Section 37 of the NDPS Act has no application. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, challan was not submitted within 60 days, which ought to have been submitted within 60 days in view of noncommercial quantity in which maximum punishment under Section 18(a) is six months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
“1. Under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate before whom an accused is produced while the police is investigating into the offence can authorise detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days on the whole.
CRM-M No.19493 of 2010
3
2. Under the proviso to the aforesaid sub-Section (2) of Section 167, a Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused otherwise than in the custody of police for a total period not exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence.
3. On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the Investigating Agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnish the bail, as directed by the Magistrate.
4. When an application for bail is filed by an accused for enforcement of his indefeasible right alleged to have been accrued in his favour on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completion of the investigation within the specified period, the Magistrate/Court must dispose of it forthwith, on being satisfied that in fact the accused has been in custody for the period of 90 days or 60 days, as specified and no charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. Such prompt action on the part of the Magistrate/Court will not enable the prosecution to frustrate the object of the Act and the legislative mandate of an accused being released on bail on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency in
CRM-M No.19493 of 2010
4
completing the investigation within the period stipulated.
5. If the accused is unable to furnish the bail as directed by the Magistrate, then on a conjoint reading of Explanation I and the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167, the continued custody of the accused even beyond the specified period in para (a) will not be unauthorised, and therefore, if during that period the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed then the so-called indefeasible right of the accused would stand extinguished.
6. The expression “if not already availed of” used by this Court in Sanjay Dutt case must be understood to mean when the accused files and application and is prepared to offer bail on being directed. In other words, on expiry of the period specified in para (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 if the accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish the bail on being directed, then it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though the Court has not considered the said application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail, and the accused has not furnished the same.”
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has stated that in view of the judgement of the Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ratto's case (supra), it seems to be non-commercial quantity.
Since petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 28.4.2010 and prima-facie, it seems that 2.5 Kgs of opium is non-commercial quantity and in view of the fact that challan was not submitted within 60 days as
CRM-M No.19493 of 2010
5
mandated by Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Uday Mohan
Lal Acharya's case (supra).
Let the petitioner be released on bail during the trial to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Petition stands disposed of.
( Alok Singh ) Judge
03.02.2011 sk.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to delay in filing the challan by the investigation agency.
Whether the quantity of 2.5 Kgs opium falling under non-commercial quantity negates the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ratto Vs. State of H.P.Referred¶22
**Ratto Vs. State of H.P.,** 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 501
Mander Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶22
Mander Singh Vs. State of Punjab**, reported in 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 634
Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs. State of MaharashtraFollowed¶23
**Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra,** (2001) 5 SCC 453 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ishwar Jat
State of Punjab
Alok Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
