HANIF ANSARI VS STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) (SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 15293/2023, CITATION : 2024(SC) 302

HANIF ANSARI VS STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) (SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 15293/2023, CITATION : 2024(SC) 302

FACTS- In this proceeding, the petitioner was implicated for committing offences under various provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the NDPS Act”). Allegations against him involve recovery of 2 Kgs. of heroin and the main ground on which he approached the High Court was that the complete chargesheet was not submitted within the stipulated amount of time as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). The petitioner was arrested on 07.04.2022 and the chargesheet was filed on 07.10.2024. At that point of time, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, identifying the specimen allegedly seized as the aforesaid contraband article, was not available. Invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code, the petitioner sought default-bail. The FSL Report was submitted later on 05.07.2023, confirming the seized material as heroin.

ISSUE- Whether non-furnishing of the FSL report with the chargesheet, within the prescribed time, would entitle an accused to default bail on the ground that it would be an incomplete chargesheet without such a report?

OBSERVATION- It has been held and observed in this judgment that the benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet.

It is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.