HARENDRA ALIAS HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P. R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to file challan within the prescribed period of 90 days, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail automatically. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cri LR (Raj) 8 decided on 9-12-1992, Sri Ram v. State of Raj (S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2023 92) decided on 1-2-93, Hira Ram v. State of Raj., 1990 (2) RLR 284 decided on 28-4-89 and Shankerlal v. State (S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2375 92 decided on 8-2-93.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner alleged to have committed offence under the N. D. P.S. Act cannot claim a right to be released on bail u S. 167(2), Cr.P.C. that too when challan has now been filed. He also submits that a bare perusal of S. 36A of the N.D.P.S. Act shows that this Court has power to grant bail and at the most it will not come in the way of High Court while granting bail u/S. 439, Cr. P.C. but in view of the clarification of law given by the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishanlal (1991) 1 SCC 705, the power of High Court to grant bail is subject to the limitations of S. 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He has relied on Jarin Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cri LR ( Raj) 723 decided on 16-10-92, Shardulbhai v. State of Gujarat, 1990 Cri LJ 1275 and further submits that the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at Bar and written submissions.