The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that mere non-receipt of viscera report alone would not render the investigation incomplete.

The Court held thus in a petition seeking quashing of an order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in a case under Sections 302, 323, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by which the application for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was dismissed.

A Single Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, “Mere non-receipt of the viscera report alone would neither render the investigation incomplete nor render the Magistrate unable to take cognizance; moreso when the instant case is based on eye witness account wherein the identity of the deceased is not in dispute and furthermore, the manner in which the injuries were allegedly inflicted upon him also stands detailed in the FIR in question.”

Advocate Mansur Ali represented the petitioners while AAG Adhiraj Thind represented the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

A phone call was received by the complainant that a person named Mandeep (accused) and 7-8 other persons after entering the land under his ownership, were hurling abuses at him. On receipt of the phone call, he along with his driver and chowkidar, went to the spot in his vehicle where the accused along with the petitioner person armed with dandas were already present along with 7-8 persons.

The accused on seeing the complainant, collided his vehicle with the one belonging to the complainant and when he tried to alight from the vehicle, the accused again hit his driver (deceased) with his vehicle as a result of which he fell down. The accused gave a danda blow to the deceased on his head and the petitioner person also inflicted injuries to the deceased. The complainant in view of the attack by the accused party, managed to run to his safety. Later, he learnt that the deceased driver had died on account of the injuries inflicted by the accused persons.

The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “Thus, in the instant case, the most important question which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the investigation was incomplete when the right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. had accrued to the petitioners.”

The Court further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan and another (Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2024) in which it was highlighted that once a charge sheet has been filed, the right of an accused to claim default bail would cease precisely for the reason that the Court in cases under the IPC takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender.

“Though it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any DNA or viscera report, the Trial Court had erred in framing charges against the petitioners under Section 302 of the IPC and further the petitioners had been falsely implicated in the instant case since a case of accident had been converted into one case of murder, however, it needs to be emphasized that the merits of the case cannot be gone into while deciding a petition under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C”, it said.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title- Narinder Kumar alias Nindi and another v. State of Punjab and others (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:012754)


Petitioners: Advocates Mansur Ali and Imran Ahmad.

Respondents: AAG Adhiraj Thind, Advocates Lalit Singla and Varsha Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment