Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, Calcutta High Court
Accused Not Entitled To Default Bail If Chargesheet Which Delineates Evidence Is Filed Within Time: Calcutta High Court
|The Calcutta High Court observed that the cognizance taken on an invalid police report cannot be said to be a nullity as illegality committed in the course of investigations does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Calcutta High Court held that an accused is not entitled to default bail if a chargesheet which delineates the evidence required for the accused to stand trial, is filed within time.
The Court held thus in a batch of four Bail Applications filed by the accused persons, seeking bail in cases registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed, “As on date therefore, if a charge sheet which delineates the evidence required for the accused to stand trial is filed within time, then the accused is not entitled to default bail. A charge sheet without the Chemical Examination Report filed within time is nonetheless a charge sheet which disentitles the accused to default bail, as the Law stands today.”
The Bench said that the cognizance taken on an invalid police report cannot be said to be a nullity as illegality committed in the course of investigations does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court.
Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee represented the Petitioners while APP Rudradipta Nandy represented the Respondents.
Contentions
It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that a Police Report without the Chemical Examination Report of the contraband seized, is an incomplete report and the detenu is entitled to statutory bail. It was further contended that an investigation includes all the proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer and it ends with the formation of the opinion as to whether the materials collected has made out a case for trial as against the accused or not. It was also argued that the purpose of an investigation is augmentation of the evidence.
Court’s Observations
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “A report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is the opinion of the investigating officer and not a legal evidence and therefore, the question of interpretation of legal evidence does not arise at that stage of submission of the chargesheet. Supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows further evidence to be filed.”
The Court said that the issue as to whether, chargesheet without the Chemical Examination Report entitles the accused in an NDPS case to default bail is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
“Supreme Court has not decided such issue finally. At present, the law on the subject as it stands today, lays down, a charge-sheet is complete if, the materials and the evidence are before Court along with the charge-sheet for the Court to take cognizance. Filing of supplementary charge sheet in order to bring on record the forensic laboratory test report is also permissible”, it added.
The Court further enunciated that the law as it stands today also requires the Courts to decide an application for grant of bail, notwithstanding the pendency of the issue as to whether, Chemical Examination Report must accompany the chargesheet or not.
“Two High Courts namely, Bombay and Guwahati have held that charge-sheet without the Chemical Examination Report does not entitle the accused to a default bail. … On the strength of the authorities presently subsisting, we are not in a position to return a finding that the charge sheet without the Chemical Examination Report makes the investigation incomplete”, it also held.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Applications and cancelled the interim bails granted in favour of the Petitioners.
Cause Title- Ananta Barman v. The State of West Bengal (Case Number: C.R.M (NDPS) 1617 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee, Advocates Sompurna Chatterjee, Apan Saha, Ishan Sen, Apolok Basu, Avinaba Patra, Nazir Ahmed, Adv. Agnik Maulik, Arup Kr. Bhoumick, Sharequl Haque, Shounak Mondal, Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Jisan Iqubal Hossain, Madhurai Sinha, and Ranabeer Halder.
Respondents: APP Rudradipta Nandy, Advocates Amita Gaur, Sayeed Khan, Rituparna De Ghose, A. Basu, Raju Mondal, Rituparna De Ghose, Anand Keshari, Afrin Begum, Rituparna De Ghose, Bibaswan Bhattacharya, and Subhajit Chowdhury.