Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court

Direct Submission of FSL Report to Trial Court Does Not Vitiate Proceedings or Prejudice Accused - In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC by holding that the direct submission of a forensic report (FSL report) to the Trial Court does not invalidate the prosecution’s case or grant an automatic right to bail. The Court clarified that if an FSL report reaches the Trial Court before an accused exercises their right to default bail, the right stands extinguished.

A bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray delivered this ruling in an NDPS case, emphasizing that procedural formalities should not become a ground for delaying justice or frustrating the intent of the law.

"Right to Default Bail is Indefeasible, But It Must Be Exercised Before Its Extinguishment"
The petitioner was arrested on February 21, 2024, for possessing commercial quantities of contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The charge sheet was filed within 180 days but without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, a crucial document confirming the nature of the seized substance. The FSL report was sent directly to the Trial Court on September 26, 2024, and the petitioner filed for statutory bail the next day, on September 27, 2024.

Rejecting the plea, the Court ruled, "Once the FSL report was received by the Trial Court before the accused exercised his right to statutory bail, his claim for default bail stood extinguished." The Court relied on precedents such as Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67 and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, DRI (2021) 2 SCC 485, reaffirming that the right to default bail is fundamental but must be invoked before it ceases to exist.

"FSL Report Need Not Be Routed Through the Investigating Officer"
A key argument by the petitioner was that the FSL report should have been submitted through the Investigating Officer (IO), and its direct submission to the Trial Court violated procedural law. The Court rejected this contention, holding, "There is no legal provision that bars a forensic laboratory from directly sending its report to the Trial Court. If anything, such direct submission expedites the process and minimizes systemic delays."

Referring to Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, which allows a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence based on information received from any source other than a police officer, the Court observed, "If the Trial Court can take cognizance based on independent information, it can certainly consider an FSL report directly received from the forensic laboratory."

The Court further noted that the delay caused by procedural formalities should not interfere with the administration of justice, stating, "If the forensic lab sends its report directly to the court, it only prevents unnecessary delay and ensures that justice is not stalled by bureaucratic inefficiencies."

"Filing of Charge Sheet Without FSL Report is Incomplete, But Right to Bail is Not Absolute"
The NDPS Act, under Section 36A(4), requires a complete charge sheet for continued detention of an accused. Courts have held that a charge sheet without an FSL report is incomplete, giving the accused a right to default bail. However, the Calcutta High Court clarified that this right does not arise if the FSL report reaches the Trial Court before the accused files for bail.

Referring to its own precedent in Rakesh Sha v. State of West Bengal (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2463) and Idul Mia v. State of West Bengal (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 9109), the Court reiterated, "Filing a charge sheet without an FSL report does not meet the requirements of Section 36A(4) NDPS Act. However, if the FSL report reaches the court before the accused applies for bail, the right to default bail is lost."

"No Prejudice to the Accused Due to Direct Submission of FSL Report"
The petitioner argued that direct submission of the FSL report to the Trial Court prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The Court, however, found no merit in this claim.

It held, "The accused has suffered no prejudice as the FSL report was simultaneously sent to the Investigating Officer, who later filed a supplementary charge sheet including the same report. The procedural method of submission does not affect the fairness of the trial."

Additionally, the Court cited Section 292 CrPC, which states that a forensic report can be used as evidence without the forensic expert being called as a witness, reaffirming its evidentiary value irrespective of its mode of submission.

"Magistrates Handling NDPS Cases Must Inform Accused of Their Right to Default Bail"
While dismissing the bail plea, the Court also addressed a critical procedural lapse—the failure of the Special Judge to inform the accused of his right to default bail.

Referring to M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, DRI (2021) 2 SCC 485, the Court stressed, "The right to default bail is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. Courts must ensure that accused persons, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds, are informed of this right as soon as it accrues."

Accordingly, the Court issued a direction to the Registrar General to notify all Special Judges handling NDPS cases to inform accused persons of their right to default bail when the statutory period expires.

Final Verdict: Bail Rejected, but Systemic Reforms Ordered
Concluding the judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the statutory bail petition, holding that the direct submission of the FSL report did not vitiate the proceedings or prejudice the accused. The Court reaffirmed that "Once the FSL report was received by the Trial Court before the accused exercised his right to statutory bail, his claim for default bail stood extinguished."

However, recognizing the importance of procedural fairness, the Court directed that all Special Judges handling NDPS cases must ensure that accused persons are informed of their right to default bail when it accrues.

Date of Decision: February 18, 2025