STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. BISHAL SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is an accused in a case of the prosecution alleging that 21.34 gms of brown sugar (heroin) which falls under the category of ,,intermediate quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) was recovered and seized from his possession. The offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to ten years but does not exceed ten years. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the charge-sheet/police report on 14/8/2025 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong, instead of the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS, 1985), Pakyong, Sikkim (the learned Special Judge) which had been duly constituted.

(2.) The State of Sikkim challenges the impugned order dtd. 27/8/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge. The impugned order held that since the charge-sheet was not filed before the competent Special Judge within sixty days, the prosecution has failed to comply with the statutory requirement. Consequently, it was held that the respondent was entitled to be released on default bail under Sec. 187(3)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023). It was further held that default bail could not be denied merely on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate which did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution had completed its investigation within the period of sixty days and merely because it filed the charge-sheet before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it could not be presumed that it had taken more than sixty days to complete the investigation.