Madras High CourtCRL RC/490/2023dismissed

Rajalakshmi @ Mithra v. The State

2023-03-15Honourable Mr Justice V.Sivagnanam6 pages

IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 15/3/2023 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Rajalakshmi @ Mithra ...

Petitioner Vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police Kodambakkam Police Station T. Nagar Chennai.

...

Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the petitioner on default bail in Crime No.81 of 2022 as only defective charge sheet has been filed on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner ...

Mr.N.Nishar Ahamed For Respondent ...

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) - - - - - 1/6

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to enlarge the petitioner, on default bail, in Crime No.81 of 2022, as only defective charge sheet has been filed by the respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17/3/2022, at about 9.00 a.m., in Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, A.6 were found giving tablets to A.7 and 150 tablets of Nitravet 10 mgs and 100 tablets of Tydol were seized from him. On the confession of A.6, petitioner was arrested at Kothawalchavadi along with three others.

The petitioner has filed first statutory bail on 19/9/2022 and the same was returned by the Principal Special Court under NDPS Act, for the reason that charge sheet was filed on 12/9/2022. Some material papers were not filed along with the charge sheet on 12/9/2022 and the same was filed before the concerned Court, on 23/9/2022. Charge sheet was taken on file on 24/9/2022. Having suspicion that the charge was defective charge sheet, petitioner has come before this Court, praying for the relief as stated therein. 2/6

3. Heard Mr.N.Nishar Ahamed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if the charge sheet was filed within the stipulated period, accused shall have the absolute right for being released on bail. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 340 days and she is ready to offer sureties and would abide any stringent conditions imposed by this Court.

5. Learned Government Advocate would submit that though the respondent Police filed the defective charge sheet on 12/9/2022, they have resubmitted the same on 23/9/2022. The case has been taken by the trial Court in C.C.No.203 of 2022. On the date of considering the statutory bail application, the Court has already taken cognisance of the case. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail.

6. Perused the materials available on record. 3/6

7. The fact reveals that the petitioner/A.2 was arrested along with A1 and 3 to 7 for having illegal possession of 4770 tablets of NITRAVET - 10, Alpersafe - 130 tablets and TYDOL - 2220 tablets + 100 tablets = 2320 tablets and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18/3/2022. The final report was filed and the same was taken on its file in C.C.No.203 of 2022. Charges were framed against the accused on 23/9/2022. When the case was pending for framing charges, petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1203 of 2023 for default bail. Vide, order, dated 2/3/2023, the learned Principal Special Judge, under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, has dismissed the same, on the ground that charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.203 of 2022.

8. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RUSTAM AND OTHERS {1995 SUPP (3) SUPREME COURT CASES - 221}, wherein it has held that right to compulsive bail does not survive after filing of the challan. The Court must examine the availability of the right to compulsive bail on the date, it is considering the question of bail and not barely on the date of presentation of the petition for bail.

4/6

9. In this case, trial Court has rightly considered the statutory bail application and since the same has been taken on file, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot claim that she is entitled for statutory appeal. Therefore, the trial Court, dismissed the bail applications.

10. In such a view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Case and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 15/3/2023 Index :yes/no mvs.

1. The Inspector of Police Kodambakkam Police Station T. Nagar Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. V. SIVAGNANAM, J 5/6

mvs.

15/3/2023 6/6