GURMEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two criminal revision petitions filed by the same petitioner Gurmej Singh. In the first Criminal Revision No.1357-2022 challenge is to the order dtd. 18/6/2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which, the application dtd. 15/6/2022 (Annexure P-2) filed by the public prosecutor under Sec. 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, for extension of time for filing the final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and in the second Criminal Revision No.1356-2022 challenge is to the order dtd. 22/6/2022 (Annexure P-4), vide which, the Special Court, Kurukshetra has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 167(2) read with Sec. 173(5) of the Cr.P.C. for "default bail". With the consent of the parties, CRR-1357-2022 is being taken up as the lead case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 21/12/2021 and was produced before the Court on 22/12/2021 and the public prosecutor, on 15/6/2022, had moved an application under Sec. 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') for extension of time for filing the challan without stating any specific reasons as to why the detention of the petitioner, beyond the stipulated period of 180 days, was necessary. It is submitted that the public prosecutor had not applied his independent mind and had merely forwarded what the investigating officer had stated in his application for seeking extension of time for presentation of the challan. It is further submitted that the impugned order dtd. 18/6/2022 granting the said extension has been passed without even considering the above vital aspect of requiring to give specific reasons as to why the custody of the petitioner is required beyond the stipulated period of 180 days. Reference has been made to the impugned order to state that only two reasons have been given in the impugned order for seeking the said extension of time and it is only on the basis of the said reasons that the time period for filing the final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. has been extended by three months. The said two reasons given therein are firstly, that the FSL report has not been received and secondly, that the arrest of the co-accused Raju @ Diwan Aacharya is still pending. It is submitted that neither of the said two reasons could have been stated to be sufficient reasons for seeking further custody of the present petitioner. In support of her contentions, reliance has been placed upon various judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court on the said aspect. The first judgment which has been relied upon is judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-14269-2014 titled as "HargobindSinghVs.State ofPunjab", decided on 14/5/2014. The second judgment is dtd. 11/2/2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-48705-2021 titled as Joginder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and other connected matter". It is further submitted that till date, neither the FSL report has been received, nor the aforesaid co-accused has been arrested. Additionally, it is argued that in the present case, the FIR was got registered on 21/12/2021, but the sample was deposited with the FSL Madhuban on 31/12/2021, although the said sample should have reached the chemical examiner within a period of 72 hours, thus, there was a delay on the part of the prosecution on the said aspect. It is thus, submitted that both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed both the present criminal revision petitions and has submitted that the application filed by the public prosecutor was filed in accordance with law and it comprised of all the necessary details as are required to be provided under the law and even the order dtd. 18/6/2022, which has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, had taken into consideration the provisions of under Sec. 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and the observations made by the Court were as per the parameters laid down under Sec. 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the recovery effected in the present case was of 210 kgs of poppy husk i.e., commercial quantity of contraband and thus, the Court was justified in extending the time for awaiting the FSL report as well as for enabling the prosecution to arrest the said co-accused. It is also submitted that the extension of time has been rightly granted, thus, the question of granting 'default bail' to the petitioner would not arise.