JAGSEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks the concession of regular bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in a case of recovery of 250 tablets of phenotil. The petitioner was arrested on September 21, 2013. Period of 180 days expired on March 20, 2014. The prosecution agency filed an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, for short 'the Act', on March 14, 2014 seeking extension of time. The petitioner filed an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on March 22, 2014. It was listed before the learned Special Judge on March 24, 2014. Notice of the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act was given to the petitioner after filing of bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for March 24, 2014. The petitioner filed a reply to the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has allowed the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act on April 2, 2014 and extended time for one month to submit the final report. Vide the same order, the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed as time was granted on April 2, 2014 to submit the challan.

(2.) IN the present case, the application of the prosecution praying for extension of time was supported by the letters issued by the SSP to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory asking the prosecution agency to send the chemical report indicating that prosecution agency made best efforts to complete the investigation but on account of chemical examiner report having not been received, charge -sheet could not be filed. Non -filing of the challan by the investigating agency was beyond its control. It cannot be said as a matter of rule that any application filed for extension of time on the ground that report of Chemical Examiner has not been received would not be a valid ground for seeking extension of time to present challan. It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts are required to examine each and every case on its own facts. In the present case, the prosecution agency had supported the application for extension of time with letters issued from the office of SSP to the Director, FSL for expediting the process of sending chemical examiner report but it was not received on account of which reason the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act had been filed giving detailed reasons and appending the relevant documents. No irregularity or illegality can be found in the circumstances of the case mentioned in the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act submitted before the Special Judge but the fact remains that in the present case the notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act for March 24, 2014 after he had filed application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on March 22, 2014. A period of 180 days had expired on March 20, 2014. Petitioner had not received any notice till March 20, 2014. The application for extension of time was allowed on April 2, 2014. When 180 days expired on March 20, 2014, the petitioner had neither been issued notice nor the period had been extended by said date. The period was extended for one month vide order dated April 2, 2014. An indefeasible right had accrued to the petitioner on expiry of 180 days i.e. on March 20, 2014. Though the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act had been filed on March 14, 2014 by the prosecution agency for extension of time but before a notice could be served upon the petitioner, the period to present challan had expired. The day when petitioner moved application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. on March 22, 2014, he had neither a notice nor there was an order for extension. The indefeasible right could not have been defeated by delay in issuing notice or by delay in consideration of the application under Section 36A(4) of the Act. In view of said circumstances, the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail.