Crl.M.No. M-12090 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-12090 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.11.2013 [ENTITY] Petitioner vs. [ENTITY] Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner Sh. [ENTITY], Additional Advocate General, Punjab. [ENTITY], J.
Petitioner [ENTITY] s/o Hans Raj Arora has applied for granted of regular bail by invoking the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] in FIR No. 78 dated 27.6.2012 under Sections 22/61/85 of the [ACT], registered at Police Station Ghali Khurd, District Ferozepur.
Petitioner was arrested on 27.6.2012 and 4400 tablets of [ENTITY], 450 tablets of [ENTITY] and 150 capsules of [ENTITY] were recovered from him. He was stated to be produced in the Court on 28.6.2012. Period of 180 days elapsed on 27.12.2012. The accused moved an application for grant of bail before the trial Court on 5.1.2013 by invoking the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] The learned trial Court instead of decided the application under [SECTION] [ACT], decided the same on merits by observing that the quantity recovery is commercial and in view of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
The State counsel is fair enough to concede that application for grant of bail by invoking the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] was moved on 5.1.2013 much after the elapse of 180 days. The challan was presented only on 9.1.2013. The bail application was dismissed on 5.2.2013.
The petitioner is stated to be aged 80 years as per prosecution.
So, the learned trial Court has committed an error by not releasing the petitioner on bail after lapse of 180 days, more so when he has exercised his right to get the bail under [SECTION] [ACT] The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority reported as [PRECEDENT] has held that right of the accused for grant of statutory bail remains unaffected by subsequent filing of application for extension of time of investigation or filing of challan.
Learned State counsel has submitted that challan could not be presented within 180 days as report of the Chemical Examiner has not been received.
However, in authority reported as [PRECEDENT], the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that mere for want of expert report investigation cannot be said to be incomplete. More so, no application for extension of time was filed by the prosecution So, in these circumstances, by invoking the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] petitioner [ENTITY] is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Disposed of.
( [ENTITY] ) 12.11.2013 Judge chugh