Dilip Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

This criminal misc. bail application under Section 439 CrPC is filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act (Additional Sessions Judge No.1), Nagaur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court'), whereby it has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioners under Sections 167(2) and 439 CrPC read with Section 36A(1)(4) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in brevity, 'NDPS Act' hereinafter).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police arrested the petitioners on 10.11.2017 when they were transporting 332 kgs. of poppy straw in a vehicle Tata Yodha Temporary No.RJ20-TC0334. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 36A(1)(4) of the NDPS Act, the investigating agency is supposed to file charge-sheet against accused-person within 180 days, however, in the present case, till the expiry of 180 days on 08.05.2018, no charge-sheet was filed by the investigating agency.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioner moved a bail application on 18.05.2018 under Section 167(2) and 439 CrPC read with Section 36A(1)(4) of the NDPS Act, however, the trial court, without appreciating the facts of the case, has rejected the said bail application.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since no charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners within prescribed time, they are entitled for compulsive bail as per the law. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that this bail application may kindly be allowed and the petitioners may be directed to be released on compulsive bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that as a matter of fact the petitioners were produced before the trial court after completion of their police remand and the trial court vide order dated 21.12.2017 extended the judicial custody of the petitioners up to 23.01.2018. On 23.01.2018 again, the judicial custody of the petitioners was extended and the date 19.02.2018 was fixed for filing the conclusions. On 19.02.2018 again, the trial court granted time to file conclusions up to 30.03.2018 and extended the judicial custody of the petitioners up to the said date. On 30.03.2018 again, the trial court granted time to file charge-sheet up to 25.04.2018 and judicial custody of the petitioners was also extended. On 25.04.2018 again, the trial court granted time to file charge-sheet against the petitioners up to 22.05.2018 and their judicial custody was also extended.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as the trial court already granted time to submit the charge-sheet against the petitioners up to 22.05.2018 vide order dated 25.04.2018 and their judicial custody was also extended, the application filed on behalf of the petitioners on 18.05.2018 invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) and 439 CrPC read with Section 36A(1)(4) of the NDPS Act was not maintainable. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that this bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and having gone through the order-sheets of the trial court, it is clear that on 25.04.2018, the trial court already extended the time for filing charge-sheet up to 22.05.2018 and looking to this fact, I am of the opinion that the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 167(2) and 439 CrPC read with Section 36A(1)(4) of the NDPS Act was not at all maintainable. Had the trial court not extended the period for filing charge-sheet up to 22.05.2018 vide order dated 25.04.2018, the petitioners might be entitled for grant of benefit of compulsive bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed against them within the prescribed time.

Hence, I do not find any case for grant of bail to the petitioners, therefore, this bail application is dismissed.