Spell reasons for extending time for filing challan: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the trial court was required to spell specific reasons for extending the time for filing the final investigation report or challan against an accused in a drugs case. It was also required to specify the investigation’s progress and the compelling reasons for his detention beyond 180 days.

The Bench also ordered the setting aside of an order rejecting default bail to the petitioner-accused, relying on extension in time granted to the prosecution to complete the investigation. Justice Sant Parkash also ruled that a public prosecutor was not merely “a post office or a forwarding agency”. He was required to make a report to the court indicating the probe’s progress and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation. He was required to do so after independent application of mind on the investigating agency’s request.

The ruling came on a petition against the State of Haryana by an accused through counsel Aditya Sanghi for setting aside an order dated October 25, 2021, whereby the trial court dismissed his application for default bail.

Sanghi told the Bench that the prosecution’s application for the extension of time for filing challan was allowed on the grounds that a co-accused was yet to be arrested and the FSL report had not been received. In a criminal case, the challan has to be presented within a specified timeframe, or 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.

Justice Sant Parkash asserted that the record clearly depicted that an application for the extension of time was allowed without notice to the petitioner. The liberty of the accused was at stake and could not be taken away in a casual manner without affording an opportunity of hearing.

“The other ingredients inasmuch as specific reasons for extension of time, the progress of the investigation and compelling reasons for the detention of the petitioner beyond the period of 180 days have not been spelt out in the order extending time for completion of investigation or in the order declining default bail to the petitioner relying on the extension of time to complete investigation,” Justice Sant Parkash added.

Before parting, Justice Sant Parkash observed that a public prosecutor was an important officer of the state government and appointed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was an independent statutory authority, expected to independently apply his mind to the investigating agency’s request before submitting a report to the court for probe.

Public prosecutor not post office

A public prosecutor was not merely a post office or a forwarding agency. He was required to make a report indicating the probe’s progress and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody. — Justice Sant Parkash, Punjab & Haryana HC