PARGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's Counsel contends that as challan was not filed within a statutory period, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the trial Court on default under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. on 13.7.1994. Later on after 90 days of the arrest of the petitioner, challan was filed in the Court on 1.8.1994, while petitioner was arrested on 10.4.1994. Thereafter, prosecution filed an application that bail granted to the petitioner be cancelled. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar allowed this application by the impugned order and cancelled that bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that he be released on bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar be set aside under Section 482, Cr. P.C. petitioner's Counsel relying on Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 JIC 14 (SC), strongly stressed that once bail has been granted to the accused on default under Section 167(2) of the Code, after presentation of the challan, bail cannot be cancelled. According to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar fell into an error in following Supreme Court's decision given in Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel's , case, AIR 1990 SC 71, which is further considered in Aslarn Babalal Desai's case (supra), by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court, wherein it is further directed that a compulsive bail order made by a Court under Section 167(2) of the Code being one not on merit, when required to be cancelled after the filing of the challan would not involve any review of a decision made on merit. Such bail is cancelled if the Court has reason to entertain the belief that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody.

(2.) RESPONDENT 's learned Counsel relying on Ram Dayal v. Central Narcotic Bureau, 1993 JIC 620 (MP) (FB) and Chander Sain v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) RCR 113, strongly opposed both the prayers and contended that the Lower Court had wrongly granted bail to the petitioner on default under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, overrides the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. The Lower Court did not consider the merits of the case while bail was granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, after the expiry of 90 days of the arrest of the petitioner, challan was presented under Section 18 of the said Act. The accused and other co-accused persons were found carrying 50 bags of poppy husk in truck No. DIG 7027 and each bag contained 40 Kilograms of poppy husk. Two samples were taken out of each of these bags. They were sent for analysis and the Chemical Examiner found them to be that of poppy husk. This offence is punishable with ten years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one lac. The petitioner is involved in heavy recovery of poppy husk and there is no material on record to say that he will not indulge in such activities again.

(3.) ON the above reasoning, the petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.