“A technical lapse by prosecution staff in placing the charge-sheet before the Court within statutory time cannot curtail the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21.”
Court’s Decision
The Tripura High Court allowed the bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed on behalf of the accused in a case involving the seizure of 386 kg of cannabis under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. The Court found that while the charge-sheet was dispatched by the investigating officer within the statutory period, it was not placed before the jurisdictional Special Court before the expiry of 180 days due to the prosecution’s negligence. Consequently, the accused’s statutory right to default bail was upheld.
The Court directed the release of the accused on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, who must be a public servant, subject to conditions ensuring his presence and non-tampering of evidence.
Facts
The case arose from a seizure on 31 December 2023, when the police intercepted a Bolero ambulance carrying 386.86 kg of cannabis in 53 bundles after the vehicle attempted to flee a check post. Three persons fled, and during investigation, the accused was arrested on 7 May 2024. The charge-sheet was dispatched by the investigating officer on 30 September 2024 but was not placed before the Special Court until after the statutory period of 180 days expired on 2 November 2024.
The accused applied for bail, arguing entitlement to statutory default bail due to this lapse, despite the seriousness of the charges.
Issues
- Whether the accused was entitled to statutory default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act due to failure in placing the charge-sheet before the Court within the statutory period.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence under the NDPS Act overrides the statutory right to bail.\
- Whether the delay in presenting the charge-sheet was attributable to the accused or constituted a technical lapse by the prosecution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- The statutory period of detention expired on 2 November 2024, and no charge-sheet was placed before the Special Court until after this date.
- The right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The lapse in placing the charge-sheet before the Court, despite its dispatch by the police, was a technical error of the prosecution, which cannot prejudice the accused.
- Cited:
- Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB (2009) 17 SCC 631, on conditions for extension of custody beyond 180 days.
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, on Article 22(1) and requirement to inform grounds of arrest.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, on the sacrosanct nature of communicating grounds of arrest and procedural compliance for personal liberty.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail, arguing:
- The NDPS Act involves serious offences impacting society, requiring strict interpretation and adherence to Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- The charge-sheet had been dispatched within the statutory period, and the technical lapse in its presentation should not result in the release of the accused.
- Cited Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848), which underlined the mandatory nature of Section 37 NDPS Act for considering bail, even when default bail is claimed, emphasizing the serious nature of narcotics offences.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court examined Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36A NDPS Act, which extends the detention period up to 180 days for serious NDPS offences.
- It held that unless the charge-sheet is placed before the competent court within this period, the accused gains a statutory right to default bail, which cannot be defeated by administrative or clerical errors of the prosecution.
- Reflected on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha that personal liberty under Article 21 is of utmost importance.
- Acknowledged that the NDPS Act is stringent, but statutory rights under CrPC remain enforceable unless a lawful procedure is followed.
Precedent Analysis
- Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB (2009) 17 SCC 631: Extension beyond 180 days under NDPS Act requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, failing which default bail applies.
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576: Emphasised that procedural compliance is essential to uphold constitutional rights during arrest and detention.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254: Reaffirmed the sacrosanct nature of procedural safeguards under Article 22(1) and its link with Article 21.
- Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848): Asserted that the seriousness of offences under the NDPS Act should guide bail decisions while respecting procedural compliance.
The Court applied these principles to balance the seriousness of the NDPS offence with the accused’s statutory right to bail due to procedural lapse.
Court’s Reasoning
- The investigating officer dispatched the charge-sheet within time, but it was not placed before the Special Court due to a lapse by court staff and prosecution handling.
- This lapse cannot curtail the statutory and constitutional rights of the accused, and failure to present the charge-sheet to the Court within the statutory period means the accused is entitled to default bail.
- The seriousness of the allegations under the NDPS Act does not override the statutory right under Section 167(2) CrPC.
Conclusion
The Tripura High Court granted bail to the accused on statutory default grounds, despite the seriousness of the NDPS allegations, due to the prosecution’s failure to place the charge-sheet before the Special Court within 180 days.
Bail was allowed with conditions:
- The accused shall attend Court once a week until trial completion.
- The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission.
- The accused shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.
Violation of conditions will allow the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
The Court also directed the Special Judge to ensure immediate placement of charge-sheets in the future to avoid such issues.
Implications
- Reinforces the importance of procedural compliance under Section 167(2) CrPC even in serious NDPS cases.
- Clarifies that technical lapses by the prosecution cannot override the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21.
- Balances individual liberty with societal concerns under the NDPS Act while upholding statutory safeguards.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB: On conditions for extending custody under the NDPS Act.
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India: Emphasised procedural compliance for arrest and detention under Article 21.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi): Reaffirmed constitutional mandate on procedural safeguards.
- Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif: Emphasised strict interpretation of NDPS Act while balancing procedural compliance.
These cases guided the High Court in granting bail while acknowledging procedural lapses.
FAQs
1. Is an accused entitled to default bail if the charge-sheet is dispatched but not presented to the Court within the statutory period?
Yes, unless the charge-sheet is presented before the competent court within the statutory period, the accused is entitled to default bail.
2. Does the seriousness of offences under the NDPS Act override the statutory right to default bail?
No, statutory rights under Section 167(2) CrPC remain enforceable even in NDPS cases if procedural compliance is not met.
3. Can the Court impose conditions while granting default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC?
Yes, the Court can impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent evidence tampering while granting default bail.
