Chargesheet Incomplete Without FSL Report – NDPS Act – P&H HC
D.D:-01.06.2022
Petitioner was arrested on 23.09.2021 and presented to the court on 17.03.2022 and contended that the challan is incomplete without the FSL report. The petitioner further argues that the public prosecutor or supplementary public prosecutor did not seek an extension of time to conduct the inquiry under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, Annexure P-2 was filed on 17.03.2022 and accepted by the trial court on 31.03.2022, Annex. P-1.
The petitioner argues that the public prosecutor must submit the investigation’s progress to the court when requesting a time extension. In this case, however, no such report was presented with Annex P-2, hence Order 31.03.2022, Annex P-1 is not warranted. Petitioner’s right to default bail accrued on the presentation of the application dated 23.03.2022 filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as the challan issued by the police on 17.03.2022 lacked an FSL and is therefore incomplete.
In support of his contentions, the petitioner’s counsel cited an order dated 09.08.2021 by the Coordinate Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRR No.361 of 2021, Jagvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, wherein it was held that the FSL report regarding the nature of recovered substance would go to the root of the matter and a challan filed without the FSL report would be an incomplete challan and would not satisfy the requirement envisaged under sect.167 (2) Cr.P.C., also cited CRR-40-2022 Ajaib Singh vs. State of Haryana, decided 17.02.2022.
The State contended that the challenged order was valid, the challan was submitted on 17.03.2022 along with an application under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act. The trial court allowed the request for an extension of time, and the petitioner’s bail motion under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Although the challan was filed without the FSL report, it cannot be considered incomplete and cited CRR No.1731 of 2019, Akash Kumar @ Sunny vs. State of Haryana, ruled on 16.10.2019.
Hon’ble High Court observed that on 17.03.2022, the police presented challan without an FSL report also filed an application (Annex. P-2) under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act seeking extension of time. The prosecutor or supplementary prosecutor didn’t forward the application. The statute requires a report from the public prosecutor detailing the investigation’s progress and the compelling reasons for extending the accused’s imprisonment beyond 180 days. the request for extension of time made by the prosecution agency was not in accordance with law. The order dated 31.03.2022, Annexure P-1, passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
High Court held that the report of the FSL goes to the root of the case and is a material document and as such, filing of challan without the same is not to be treated as complete challan. Rejecting default bail to the petitioner set aside and ordered to release on default bail.
Rohtash @ Raju
Vs.
State of Haryana
