Madras High Court: In a criminal revision case filed under Sections read with Section of (‘CrPC’) , to set aside the order of extension of investigation passed by the Principal Special Judge under and (‘NDPS Act’) and to enlarge the accused on bail, Sunder Mohan, J. reiterated that if an extension application is pending, the right of the accused to obtain default bail, would not accrue to the accused. Further, noting that the Public Prosecutor had failed to explain why further detention was necessary for the purpose of the investigation, set aside the impugned order which had extended the statutory period for investigation. Therefore, as the extension order was overturned, the right to statutory bail was revived, and the accused persons were entitled to be released on bail.
The broad submissions of the accused persons in all the cases were as follows: They contended that their applications for statutory bail were belatedly dismissed by the Trial Court. They further argued that the extension applications filed by the State were not considered alongside the bail applications. In any event, the accused claim that an indefeasible right to bail accrues to them upon the expiry of the statutory period. They asserted that, despite the pendency of the extension application, they were entitled to bail.
Issues
Whether the right of default bail accrues on the expiry of the statutory period, if the application for extension is filed by the State and is pending consideration?
If the extension application is filed within the statutory period, as to when and how the said application has to be considered and whether it has to be considered along with the bail application filed by the accused?
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the extension application was filed by the prosecution before the expiry of the statutory period.
After taking note of Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II), and M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, , the Court noted that the right of the accused to seek bail on the completion of the statutory period would be deferred, if an extension application is pending and both the applications have to be considered together.
The Court further took note of Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency, ,wherein it was held that notwithstanding the pendency of extension application, the Court could have released the accused on the expiry of the statutory period provided the accused has filed a bail application and the State cannot say that since the extension application is pending, the bail application should not be considered.
Thus, relying on Judgebir case (supra), the Court concluded that that if an extension application is pending, the right of the accused to obtain default bail, would not accrue to the accused.
The Court also referred to the Full Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held that the prayer for extension of period of detention must be decided at the earliest without undue delay and preferably within seven days from making such application and reasons for adjournment must be specifically stated.
The Court said that the right of the accused for statutory bail is indefeasible and when that right is sought to be denied, it has to be within the parameters laid down by the Courts and not by a casual approach.
The Court remarked that it is needless to say that both the State and the Courts are bound to strictly comply with the directions issued by the superior Courts regarding the procedure for considering applications for bail and for extending the time limit for filing reports.
The Court clarified that there is no necessity to call upon the accused to file a counter in the extension application. All that the Court is required to consider is whether the report of the Public Prosecutor satisfies the twin requirements, namely:
(a) There is appreciable progress in the investigation.
(b) There are specific compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation.
Therefore, the Court said that the Trial Courts are expected to follow the above directions without any deviation and consider the applications at the earliest and not later than seven days as directed by this Court in Varun v. State,
In the present case, the Court noted that the Trial Court had failed to dispose of the extension application and the bail application together, as required. Additionally, the Court observed that the extension application was not considered in an expeditious manner, which is contrary to the established directives. Since, there is a violation of the direction, the Court viewed that the accused persons would be entitled to statutory bail in all the cases.
After taking note of the report submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor, wherein it was mentioned that some of the accused are absconding and investigation is spread to another State and investigation has to be conducted in detail, the Court viewed that the reasons given by the Special Public Prosecutor must be specific and compelling to justify further detention pending investigation. Therefore, the Court said that the Public Prosecutor has to be specific as to why further detention is required due to the continuation of the investigation and if that is absent, the application under Section of the , cannot be allowed.
In the instant case, the Court noted that the Public Prosecutor had failed to explain why further detention was necessary for the purpose of the investigation. As such, the impugned order passed by the Principal Special Judge under the EC and NDPS Act in the petition filed under Section 167(2) (Section 187(3) of BNSS) was found to be liable to be set aside. The Court clarified that the Special Public Prosecutor’s argument that the lab report was still pending was not deemed a sufficient reason to seek continued detention.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order which had extended the statutory period for investigation. As the extension order was overturned, the right to statutory bail was revived, and the accused persons were entitled to be released on bail.
The Court viewed that the police should be directed to file the extension application at least fourteen days prior to the expiry of the statutory period, should further detention of the accused be necessary for the investigation. This application should be accompanied by a report from the Public Prosecutor.
The Court further observed that if the extension application is filed well in advance, the Trial Court could consider it before the statutory period ends. This would allow the accused the option to challenge the order, thereby eliminating the need to consider the extension application together with the accused’s bail application for default bail.
The Court held that only in extraordinary circumstances can an extension application filed within fourteen days before the expiry of the statutory period be entertained by the Trial Court. Additionally, the Public Prosecutor’s report must explicitly state the reasons why the extension application could not be filed at least fourteen days before the statutory period ended. The Trial Court will only entertain such a belated extension application if it is satisfied with the justification provided in the report.
[Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.R.C.Nos.1847 of 2024, decided on 27-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Rajamohamed, Mr.A.Samson, Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
The post appeared first on .