Punjab and Haryana High Court raps police for ‘careless’ investigation in drugs case

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 15

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for an inquiry into the way a drugs case, allegedly involving “heavy” recovery of contraband, was dealt with after observing that it resulted in the grant of bail to an accused.

The High Court also directed the forwarding of the order’s copy to Haryana Director-General of Police for taking “necessary steps” if deemed appropriate.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan asserted the recovery was heavy. But the way the investigation and filing of challan was dealt with under the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was required to be looked into at the appropriate level.

Justice Jhingan asserted: “As per the stand taken by State it was a case of negligence. Without commenting upon the stand of the State, it would suffice-to-say that it resulted in grant of bail to the petitioner, in spite of the bar under Section 37 of the Act”.

Section 37 makes it clear that severity or strictness in granting bail was applicable to offences involving commercial quantity. It indicates that no person accused of an offence punishable under this law “shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless — the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”.

The matter was brought to Justice Jhingan’s notice after the accused filed a petition challenging order dated March 26, 2021, whereby default bail was declined. In a criminal case, the challan has to be presented within a specified timeframe, or else extension in time is required to be sought. Failure to present the challan within the stipulated period gives the accused an “indefeasible right” to get “default” bail, in the absence of extension in time granted by the Court.

The Bench was told that challan in the FIR dated July 1, 2020, was presented on September 22, 2020, without the FSL report. His counsel added the issue whether challan without FSL report amounted to filing of incomplete report was referred to a Division Bench and interim bail was granted. He further relied upon another High Court decision in a similar matter.

Directing conditional release on bail, Justice Jhingan added a specific query was posed to State as to why extension for presentation of challan beyond the specified period was not applied for. The State counsel, in turn, submitted departmental inquiry had been initiated against the investigating officer for negligence.

Case of negligence

In a criminal case, the challan has to be presented within a specified timeframe, or else extension in time is required to be sought. Failure to present the challan within the stipulated period gives the accused an “indefeasible right” to get “default” bail, in the absence of extension in time granted by the Court