Suresh Kumar vs State

This criminal misc. bail application under Section 439 CrPC is filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court'), whereby it has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) CrPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2018 with the allegation that he was transporting 157.300 kgs. of poppy straw in Tavera Car No.GJ-05-CG-4611. The petitioner was remanded by the trial court on 18.07.2018 and 180 days after his arrest expired on 13.01.2019 including the day of remand, however, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner on 15.01.2019 clearly on 182nd day after his arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, when the charge-sheet has not been filed after expiry of 180 days of the arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to be released on compulsive bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has illegally rejected the bail application of the petitioner under Section 167(2) CrPC while observing that the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on 14.01.2019. It is submitted that the said finding of the trial court is factually incorrect because the charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on 15.01.2019 and the same is evident from the order-sheet of the trial court itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in Basram Meena vs. State of Rajasthan Thro. P.P., reported in 2018(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1332 and prayed that the petitioner may be released on compulsive bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and vehemently argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court, whereby it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) CrPC because the police have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner just after expiry of 180 days of his arrest.

Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1986 SC 2130 and submitted that the date on which the accused-person is sent to remand is the relevant date and not the date of arrest and as such the period of 180 days should be calculated from the date of remand and not from the date of arrest.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the petitioner was sent to remand by the Magistrate on 18.07.2018 and the 180th day was completed on 14.01.2019 and just after expiry of the said 180th day, the charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on 15.01.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on compulsive bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts, not in dispute, are that the petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2018 and he was remanded by the concerned court on 18.07.2018 and the charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on 15.01.2019. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the total period of 180 days has to be calculated only from the date of remand and not from the date of arrest. After the date of remand of the petitioner, 180th day expired on 14.01.2019 and immediately after expiry of 180th day, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on 15.01.2019.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 182nd day of his arrest, the petitioner is entitled to be released on compulsive bail.

Resultantly, the application filed by the petitioner seeking compulsive bail is rejected.