RAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition lays challenge to orders dated 6.11.2013 and 18.11.2013 passed by the Special Judge (Fast Tract Court), Rupnagar whereby the application for extension of judicial custody of the accused (petitioner) by 90 days to enable the prosecution to present the challan in FIR No. 88 dated 11.5.2013 was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner for release on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") in the said case has been dismissed, respectively.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that the application filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kurali dated 6.11.2013 with an endorsement of the public prosecutor for the State was not competent as it was filed without compliance with the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). It is further submitted that the learned trial court seriously erred in allowing this application without an opportunity of hearing to the accused, thus, the order passed by the learned trial court allowing extension of judicial custody of the petitioner cannot be allowed to sustain. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 942.

(3.) To assail the order declining the prayer of the petitioner for release on bail on failure of the prosecution to present the challan within the stipulated period of 180 days from the date he was remanded to judicial custody, counsel has submitted that as the order dated 6.11.2013 allowing extension cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the application of the petitioner for release on bail was rejected by the trial court on the basis of order of extension, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. For this purpose, he has cited judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State, GNCTD and others, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 875.