Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case Due to Incomplete Investigation: Violation of Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted default bail to a petitioner in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The court held that the investigation remained incomplete within the prescribed period, thus entitling the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, while delivering the judgment on June 6, 2023, stated, “If on the expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days, investigation is still incomplete, an indefeasible right would accrue in favor of the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.”

The case revolved around the petitioner, Chander Prakash, who challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat. The petitioner argued that the challan had been presented without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report within the stipulated period. As a result, the statutory period for completing the investigation had expired.

The court further emphasized that in NDPS Act cases, the FSL report is crucial as it helps determine the nature of the recovered substance. The absence of the FSL report rendered the challan incomplete, and the petitioner was entitled to default bail.

Highlighting the violation of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the court noted, “The provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act insofar as the requirement of a report being made by the Public Prosecutor for an extension of time is concerned, are mandatory in nature.”

The judgment underlined the importance of the report from the Public Prosecutor for seeking an extension of time, which was not fulfilled in this case. The court found that the extension of time granted by the lower court lacked a report from the Public Prosecutor, rendering it invalid.

The court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail, clarifying that the judgment did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

This ruling reaffirms the rights of the accused and underscores the necessity for strict compliance with procedural requirements, ensuring a fair and just legal process in NDPS Act cases.

Date of decision: 6th June, 2023

Chander Prakash vs State of Haryana

Latest Legal News