RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused in crime No. 62/2006 (FIR No. 21/06) of santapur Police Station, Aurad Taluk, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (B) (II) (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psy-chotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'ndps Act' for short ). These petitioners were found transporting 224 KGs. , of ganja contained in six gunny bags in a scorpio car on 11-6-2006 at about 10. 30 a. m. The police have seized the ganja as well as the aforesaid vehicle used for transportation. The petitioners are apprehended along with the drug after chasing for certain distance when they tried to escape. They have filed this petition praying for the relief of releasing them on bail.

(2.) SRI Sharanabasappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the police did not file charge-sheet till the expiry of 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioners and that therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail. The said submission is opposed by Sri Siddagangaiah, learned government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(3.) THE records disclose that the petitioners have filed application for bail on 183rd day before the Court below. At the time of filing the objections, the State Public Prosecutor prayed for extension of time to complete the investigation. Though no separate application is filed praying for extension of time to complete the investigation, the State public Prosecutor in his statement of objections to the bail petition, requested in one paragraph for extension of time to complete the investigation. Based on such prayer, the Court below has extended the time for two months for filing the charge-sheet. However, the bail petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed by the very order. Hence, this petition is filed praying for bail. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail as the investigation is not completed within 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioners, and that the prayer of seeking extension of time to complete the investigation is made beyond 180 days. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the said prayer should have been made by the State Public Prosecutor before 180 days and not beyond 180 days. 3a. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act, the magistrate may authorise detention of the accused person for custody for a total period exceeding 180 days, if the investigation cannot be completed by that time. The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36-A of the NDPS act makes it further clear that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the period of 180 days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. The provision in sub-section (4)of Section 36-A of the NDPS Act is exception to the general rule contained in section 167 (2) of Cr. P. C. The NDPS Act is enacted for the purpose of declaring law relating to narcotic drugs to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psycho-tropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of the property derived from or used in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotro-pic substances, to implement the provisions of international conventions of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and for the matters connected therewith. This is a special enactment covering the aforesaid subject and thus the provisions contained in NDPS Act shall naturally override the provisions of criminal Procedure Code wherever the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act. Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act specifies that the person accused of the offences punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27-A of the NDPS act shall not be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences. Thus, it is incumbent on the court to record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offences charged while releasing the accused on bail. The expression "reasonable grounds" as used in Section 37 of the Act means something more than prima facie grounds.