The Calcutta High Court recently addressed the critical issue of default bail applications being kept pending until the filing of a chargesheet by investigating agencies. In a significant ruling, the division bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray emphasized that such practices must be strongly discouraged, as they undermine the indefeasible right of an accused to default bail.
The case in question involved a petitioner arrested on March 17, 2024, under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The statutory period for filing a chargesheet in NDPS cases is 180 days. On the 84th day after the arrest, the investigating agency submitted a chargesheet; however, it lacked the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which is crucial for confirming the nature of the seized substance. Subsequently, on September 5, 2024, the 172nd day post-arrest, the trial court denied the petitioner's bail application.
On the 179th day, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail. It was only on the 200th day after the arrest that the investigating officer filed a supplementary chargesheet, including the FSL report, which confirmed the presence of narcotics in the seized items. The petitioner's counsel argued that the bail application was pending before the High Court when this supplementary chargesheet was filed.
The court scrutinized the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), particularly Section 187(3), which mandates the release of an accused on bail upon the expiry of 90 or 60 days if the investigation is incomplete. Section 187(9) further requires the investigating officer to justify any need for extending the investigation beyond six months from the date of arrest. The bench observed that some courts tend to keep default bail applications pending, allowing time for the prosecution to file a chargesheet in the interim. The judges asserted that such practices should be vehemently discouraged, reiterating that no subterfuge should defeat the accused's indefeasible right to default bail during the period between the expiration of the statutory timeframe for filing the chargesheet and its eventual submission.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that procedural delays do not infringe upon statutory entitlements. By condemning the practice of delaying default bail applications until the filing of a chargesheet, the Calcutta High Court has reinforced the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. The decision serves as a reminder to trial courts and investigating agencies to adhere strictly to procedural timelines and to respect the rights of individuals under investigation.
In related developments, the Calcutta High Court has previously addressed issues concerning the filing of chargesheets without accompanying forensic reports. In one instance, the court granted default bail to an accused in an NDPS case where the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated 180 days but lacked the FSL report. The court held that the absence of the forensic report rendered the chargesheet incomplete, thereby entitling the accused to default bail. This decision highlights the judiciary's insistence on the completeness and integrity of investigative procedures, emphasizing that all essential documents must accompany the chargesheet to validate its submission within the statutory period.
These rulings collectively reflect the Calcutta High Court's proactive stance in safeguarding the procedural rights of the accused, ensuring that investigative agencies and lower courts do not circumvent statutory provisions designed to protect individual liberties. By addressing and rectifying such procedural lapses, the court aims to maintain the delicate balance between the state's interest in prosecuting offenses and the fundamental rights of individuals subjected to criminal proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.