ROHTASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking default bail in criminal case having FIR No.336 dtd. 22/9/2021 under Ss. 22-C/27A NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar Dabwali.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the prosecution version, the petitioner was arrested and presented in the court on 23/9/2021 and the challan was presented against the petitioner on 17/3/2022 by the police. The counsel further contends that the said challan was without the FSL report and therefore, is to be considered as incomplete challan. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that no application was moved by the public prosecutor or additional public prosecutor, as per the provisions of Sec. 36A(4) NDPS Act seeking extension of time to complete the investigation in the present case. The counsel further contends that as per prosecution such an application, Annexure P-2, was filed on 17/3/2022 and indisputably same was allowed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 31/3/2022, Annex. P-1. The counsel further contends that for seeking extension of time, the public prosecutor after an independent application of mind to the request of the investigating agency, is required to make a report to the Court indicating therein the progress of investigation. That however, in the present case no such report was submitted along with Annex. P-2, and as such, order dtd. 31/3/2022, Annex. P-1, is not at all justified. The counsel further contends that the petitioner"s right to default bail had accrued on the presentation of the application dtd. 23/3/2022 filed under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C., as the challan which was filed by the police on 17/3/2022 was without any FSL and thus, is to be considered as incomplete challan. In support of his contentions the counsel for the petitioner referred to order dtd. 9/8/2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No.361 of 2021, Jagvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it was held that the report of FSL with regard to nature of recovered substance would go to the root of the matter and a challan filed without the FSL report with regard to the same would be an incomplete challan and would not satisfy the requirement envisaged under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the accused in such circumstances would be entitled to be released on default bail. The counsel further relied upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR-40-2022 Ajaib Singh Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 17/2/2022.

(3.) The counsel for the State on the other hand contends that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The State counsel further submits that the challan was filed on 17/3/2022 and along with the same an application under Sec. 36A(4) NDPS Act was moved and the request for seeking extension of time was accepted by the trial Court and resultantly the bail application moved by the petitioner under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C was dismissed. The State counsel further contends that admittedly the aforesaid challan was filed without the FSL report but still it cannot be treated as an incomplete challan. In support of his contentions the State Counsel referred to CRR No.1731 of 2019, Akash Kumar @ Sunny Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16/10/2019 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.