1 BA-1652.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1652 OF 2011 Kamal Kishore Narayan Vyas .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Smt. S.A. Dhamale for the Applicant. Smt. S.V. Sonawane, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: DECEMBER 14, 2011 P.C: 1. This is second application for bail by the applicant whose previous application was rejected by the order dated 14-12-2010. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the previous application was rejected by this Court on 14-12-2010, C.A. reports were shown to this Court and those C.A. reports were considered while rejecting the application for bail. She submits that charge-sheet in this case was filed on 2-7-2010. The C.A. reports itself became available to the investigating officer some time after 16-9-2010. It was however not produced before the trial Court till the trial Court was moved by the applicant 2 BA-1652.11 for bail complaining of breach of provisions of Section 167 of Cr.P.C., in as much as the charge-sheet filed was incomplete. The learned Judge by his order dated 30-9-2011 seems to have received the C.A. reports which were made available to him on that day and proceeded to reject the application. He has thereafter framed charge and proceeded with the trial. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the course followed by the investigating officer was improper and he had submitted an incomplete charge-sheet only to prevent the applicant from taking benefit of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.. She relies amongst others on a Judgment of this Court in Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 Mh.L.J. 689. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, the case pertained to offences punishable under Sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and therefore without the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory it would not have been possible for the Court to take cognizance of the offence. In this context, this Court observed that charge- sheet or report as contemplated under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. should be such that on the 3 BA-1652.11 basis of such charge-sheet the Magistrate should be able to proceed further and take cognizance and if documents without which the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance do not form part of the charge-sheet, such charge- sheet could not be considered as a complete report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.. The learned APP submitted that such is not the present case. In this case, the charge is one of murder of which cognizance could be taken even without C.A. reports on the basis of other evidence and therefore the applicant cannot take benefit of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande (supra). If this ground is not available to the applicant, since the application of the applicant was considered on merits and rejected, it cannot be said that there is any change in circumstances now warranting a fresh look at the matter. The learned counsel also submits about the sample being used up. The sample was bound to be used in the course of analysis. There is nothing unusual about it. In any case, the trial Court would go into this question at the time of appreciation of the evidence. The application is, therefore, rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)