Blog

TITLE: Rajpal  v State of Haryana

Decided On-:22.5.2023

CRR-1850-2022 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasjith Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION-   The current revision petition was filed in opposition to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, order dated August 31, 2022, which denied the applicant’s request for default regular bail.Registered under Sections 20, 25 of the NDPS, 1985, petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The case’s brief facts state that while the police party was on patrol, a tip was received that Mani Ram son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh, and Vishal son of Hoshiar Singh were behind the wheel of a black Tata Harrier car through the village while carrying a large amount of charas. If the road from Panchi Jattan to Rajpur was barricaded, the three accused could be found and arrested along with the car. A report was written and sent to the Police Station Ganaur in this regard based on the information. After some time, the police team noticed the suspicious car leaving Panchi Jattan’s side as they were doing vehicle checks. It came to an end. Two little boys got out of the car. One young child was seated in the driver’s seat, and another fled the area. The driver was identified as Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh by the arrested youths as Rajender’s son Mani Ram. Vishal was the young man who fled. The recovery of 1 kg 800 gms of charas from the car’s dash board was then accomplished.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s learned attorney claims that since the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of default bail had only been denied because the deadline for presenting a challan had been extended by 90 days, the petitioner was now entitled to the grant of default bail because the said order extending the deadline for presenting a challan by 90 days had been overturned by this Court in CRR1907-2022, decided on 16.05.2023.

The learned State attorney does not contest the fact that the petitioner was qualified for the award of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the order granting the delay for presenting the challan has been reversed.

The hon’ble court has heard both arguments submitted by the parties with their particular reliance on various judgments, hence has made a conclusion stating According to Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, an accused person has an unassailable right to be granted bail since the investigating agency failed to provide the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the allotted time. In the present instance, the investigating agency filed a request for an extension in order to get more time for presenting the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the absence of the FSL report. An order dated August 2, 2012, granted a 90-day extension. However, the abovementioned ruling was revoked by this Court in an order dated May 16, 2023 that was issued in CRR-1907-2022.

Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioners would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act once this Court has ruled that the grant of an extension of 90 days in the presentation of the challan itself is unlawful.

Bail granted

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement