MAHESH BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Revision Application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') is against the order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Special Case No. 16 of 2014(K), passed by learned Special Judge, Khunti whereby and whereunder, the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code has been dismissed.

(2.) IT appears from the record that the petitioner was made accused in Khunti P.S. Case no. 122 of 2014 dated 28.09.2014 instituted under Sections 8, 21, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter called 'the Act') on the allegation that the informant, Superintendent of Police, Khunti received a secret information that the petitioner, who is living in his in -law's house, is doing illegal business of Heroin/Brown Sugar along with others. Whereafter, a raid was conducted in the house and police party entered into the room and apprehended this petitioner Mahesh Bhagat and one Prakash Manjhi and on search of the room, a white packet kept in a carry -bag containing Heroin/Brown Sugar was found and after testing from D.D. Kit, it was found positive and the total weight of the seized article was 254 grams. The apprehended accused persons further disclosed the name of other accused persons, who were involved in narcotic business. It further appears from the record that petitioner was remanded in judicial custody on 29.09.2014 but when no charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner within 90 days, as provided under Section 36 -A(4) of the Act, a petition was filed under Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground that petitioner, because of non -submission of the charge sheet within the stipulated period, has acquired a right to be released on bail but the prayer was opposed by the State counsel on the ground that as the seized article comes under commercial quantity under the aforesaid Section 36 -4(A) of the Act, 180 days has been provided for submission of final report. The court below vide order dated 25.02.2015 rejected the prayer for bail. It further appears that when even after lapse of the statutory period of 180 days, the charge sheet was not submitted, the petitioner again filed an application on 31.03.2015 under Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground of nonfiling of charge -sheet even after completion of 180 days, with prayer to release him on bail, but the Court below vide order impugned again rejected the prayer holding that in view of provision of Section 36 -A(4) of the act, the bail petition filed under Section 167(2) of the Code is not maintainable as one year time will be applicable. It further appears that no petition on behalf of Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State was ever filed before the court below either for extension of time showing indication of progress of the investigation or stating the compelling reason for seeking the detention of this petitioner beyond the statutory period of 180 days. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision application has been preferred.

(3.) MR . Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned, submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the mandate given under Section 36 -A(4) of the Act and also the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code and without extending the period of detention to one year, as provided under the Act and without considering the circumstances responsible, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. It was also contended that the court below failed to take judicial notice that the Court has every power to extend the period of 180 days up to one year, but a reasoned order is required to be passed on the basis of report of the Public Prosecutor specifying the reasons for the detention. It was also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2014 and remanded in judicial custody on 29.09.2014 and since then he has been languishing in jail custody though the very object of the Act and legislative intent has been frustrated and violated. Hence, the petitioner deserves the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Code vis -a -vis the provisions of Section 36 -A (4) of the Act.