Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 167(2) and 439(2) – Two cases registered under NDPS Act – One case was of recovery of contraband from the car of the appellants-accused in Hyderabad – Another case was of recovery of contraband from the factory, in the State of Maharashtra from where the appellant-accused were transporting the contraband – Combined complaint was submitted in respect of both the cases in the Court, in the State of Maharashtra – Default bail u/s.167(2) granted to appellants-accused by the court in Hyderabad on the ground that charge-sheet was not filed within 180 days – Thereafter, custody of the appellants-accused granted to the Court in Maharashtra in respect of the second case – Court in Maharashtra found that combined complaint since was already filed within 180 days before it, default bail could not have been granted – Application before High Court by authority concerned u/s. 439(2) seeking cancellation of default bail – Bail cancelled by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The combined complaint having been filed well within 180 days, High Court did not commit any error in cancelling the default bail.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is true that there were two offences, one at Hyderabad being at the instance of D.R.I., Hyderabad and another by the D.R.I., Bangalore. A combined complaint taking care of both the offences was filed before the Special Court, Omerga, Maharashtra wherein offences committed by the accused were also inquired and dealt with. There is ample material in the complaint that the transportation of narcotic substance started from Omerga, Maharashtra and was being allegedly to be taken to Chennai and intercepted at Hyderabad. The complaint gives the detailed facts including the journey and the interception of appellants at Hyderabad. [Para 12][951-D-F]
2. It was not even submitted that the Court where common complaint had been filed against the accused had no jurisdiction to inquire and try the offence. It was due to some miscommunication that at the time when Court passed the order on 12.07.2018, the factum of filing of combined complaint dated 06.07.2018 was not brought into the notice of Special Court, Hyderabad. Although, letter of the same date 12.07.2018 was received by Special Court, Hyderabad from Special Court, Omerga praying for custody of the appellants, which custody was also granted by the Special Court, Hyderabad on the next day, i.e., 13.07.2018. [Para 11][951-B-C]
3. All these facts were brought before the High Court in application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The combined complaint having been filed on 06.07.2018, i.e., well within 180 days, the High Court did not commit any error in cancelling the default bail, granted to the appellants on 12.07.2018. [Paras 11 and 12][951-D, F]
4. It is open for the appellants to file regular bail application before Omerga Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits. [Para 13][951-H]
Pandit Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 745 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.