S. SENTHIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge-I, Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai and enlarge the petitioner on statutory bail.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the respondent police registered a case against this petitioner/A1 and two others in Crime No.80 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for having illegal possession of 112 kgs of Ganja on 30/1/2022. The petitioner/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30/1/2022. Since he is in custody for more than 180 days, on the very next day (181th day) i.e., on 29/7/2022, the petitioner has filed a statutory bail application in Crl.M.P.No.3623 of 2022 before the Special Court seeking statutory bail for non filing of charge sheet within the statutory period,which was dismissed by the Special Court on the ground that charge sheet was filed on 29/7/2022 and the same was taken on file by the Special Judge in C.C.No.145 of 2022. Therefore, the Statutory bail petition under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the statutory bail petition was filed on 29/7/2022 at 10.30.a.m., before the Special Court on the 181st day of arrest of the petitioner. Only, on 29/7/2022, the prosecution filed the final report, which is beyond the mandatory period of 180 days as prescribed under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. (including the date of remand was computed). The date of remand, i.e. 30/1/2022, has to be included for computing the period. If the date of remand, i.e. on 30/1/2022 is included for computing the statutory period, the filing of final report on 29/7/2022 is beyond the statutory period and hence, the petitioner is entitled to get statutory bail on filing his bail application on 29/7/2022. The Trial Court dismissed his statutory bail petition as final report is filed within the statutory period and failed to consider the fact that the prosecution filed the final report beyond the statutory period of 180 days. The Trial Court has no power to interfere with the indefeasible right of the petitioner conferred under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. The prosecution cannot defeat the enforcement of his indefeasible right by subsequently filing a final report. Thus pleaded to set aside the impugned order and enlarge the petitioner on bail.