Page 182 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

164 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Louis Jaly @ Muthukrishna, (iii) (1978) 1 SCC
118, Gurcharan Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration), and (iv) (2008) 17
SCC 745, Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra, this Court had held by detailed or-
der that the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.,
and examine the grounds seeking cancellation of bail. Thereafter, further argu-
ments were advanced by Mr. N.P. Kumar, Learned Special Public Prosecutor, for
DRI cases and G. Murugendran, Learned Counsel for the respondent/A11.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/A11 was arrested
by the officers of DRI on 4-8-2018 and was remanded to judicial custody for the
offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25A and 29 of
NDPS Act, 1985. It is an admitted fact that the applicant herein had not filed any
final report on or before 31-1-2019 and the Learned Special Public Prosecutor has
also not filed any petition for extension of time to file final report on or before
31-1-2019 on which date the 180 days of remand was completed.
7. On 1-2-2019, respondent/A11 filed a petition under Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C., seeking bail. This was filed in the morning at 10.30 a.m. before the Learned
Sessions Court. On the same day at 04.25 p.m., the prosecution filed an additional
complaint in which they have also included as accused No. 11, M. Ravindran @
Praveen @ Rex S/o. Mayandi and as accused No. 12, G. Prathap @ Mike S/o. Late Chi-
ranjeevi. They have also stated about the further investigation on information re-
ceived from DRI Mumbai Zonal Unit regarding the involvement of A11 and A12
in facilitating a syndicate involved in illicit manufacture of Narcotics at Mumbai.
They conducted search at the residence of A11 at Chennai and seized indiscrimi-
nating documents. The statements were also recorded from A11, M. Ravindran
and he was arrested on 4-8-2018 and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter,
on information provided by A11, A12 was also summoned under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act, 1985 and his statements were also recorded relating to his role in
the seizure of Ketamine and Pseudo Ephedrine and relating to his knowledge of
illegal manufacture of Narcotic drugs and its transport to Mangadu and further
packing of the illegal drugs for illegal export out of India. It was also stated that
substantial further information were received and he was also arrested and re-
manded on 29-9-2017. It was also stated in the additional complaint that further
witnesses were also examined and the mobile phones used by A11 and A12 had
been forwarded through the Court to the Director of Forensic Science, Gandhi-
nagar, Gujarat, to carry out forensic analysis and that report is awaited. The said
additional complaint was filed along with annexures including the memo of evi-
dence, original documents submitted to the Court, material objects already sub-
mitted to the Court and the documents relied upon as Annexure-1 to IV.
8. The petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., filed by the accused and
the additional complaint filed by the prosecution were both taken up for consid-
eration by the Learned Special Judge for NDPS cases for consideration and by
order dated, 5-2-2019, the Learned Special Judge, granted bail to the respond-
ent/A11 herein under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The present petition has been
filed seeking to cancel the bail.
9. A perusal of the order of the Learned Special Judge, shows that he
was primarily concerned with the fact that the prosecution had not filed any peti-
tion seeking extension of time to file final report. However, the Learned Judge
had completely overlooked to examine the contents of the additional complaint
filed by the prosecution. No discussion had been made on the effect of the addi-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  182