As per case facts, the appellant, accused under the NDPS Act, had his bail pleas rejected by the City Sessions Judge and High Court due to Section 37 of the ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DR. BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJRAT
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/1996
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 718 JT 1996 (1) 111
1996 SCALE (1)142
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
N.P. SINGH, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated
19.4.1994 passed by the High Court, rejecting the prayer of
the bail, made on behalf of the appellant, who is an accused
for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the
N.D.P.S. Act).
It appears that the appellant was arrested on
8.11.1993. A petition for bail on merit was rejected by the
City Sessions Judge on 4.2.1994 in view of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs.
Kishan Lal and Others. AIR 1991 SC 558 = (1991) 1 SCC 705,
taking into consideration Section 37 of the said Act. The
High Court also rejected the prayer for bail, made on behalf
of the appellant, in view of Section 37 of the Act, after
making reference to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and Others
(supra).
The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged
that the statutory period prescribed by proviso (a) to sub-
section (2) of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure
during which the appellant could have been kept in custody,
pending investigation, had expired, because of which the
appellant should have been released on bail and at that
stage there was no question of application of Section 37 of
the Act. Recently, this Court has considered the question of
applicability of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167
of the Code in respect of an accused under N.D.P.S. Act in
the case of Union of India vs. Thamisharasi & Ors., JT 1995
(4) SC 253 and it has been held that Section 37 does not
exclude tha application of the proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section 167 of the Code, even in respect of persons who are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
accused for offences under N.D.P.S. Act. But it is an
admitted position that the charge-sheet has been filed on
23.5.1994 and now the appellant is in custody on the basis
of orders of remand passed under the other provisions of the
Code. Whether the accused who was entitled to be released on
bail under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the
Code, not having made an application when such right had
accrued, can exercise that right at a later of the
proceeding, has been examined by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State through
C.B.I. Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410 and it has been said :
"The "indefeasible right" of the accused
to be released on bail in accordance
with Section 20 (4) (bb) of the TADA Act
read with Section 167(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in default of
completion of the investigation and
filing of the challan within the time
allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur is a right which enures to, and
is enforceable by the accused only from
the time of default till the filing of
the challan and it does not survive or
remain enforceable on the challan being
filed. If the accused applies for bail
under this provision on expiry of the
period of 180 days or the extended
period, as the case may be, then he has
to be released on bail forthwith. The
accused so released on bail may be
arrested and committed to custody
according to the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The right of the
accused to be released on bail after
filing of the challan, notwithstanding
the default in filing it within the time
allowed, is governed from the time of
filing of the challan only by the
provisions relating to the grant of bail
applicable at that stage".
Therefore, if an accused person fails to exercise his right
to be released on bail for the failure of the prosecution to
file the charge-sheet within the maximum time allowed by
law, he cannot contend that he had an indefeasible right to
exercise it at any time notwithstanding the fact that in the
meantime the charge-sheet is filed. But on the other hand if
he exercises the right within the time allowed by law and is
released on bail under such circumstances, he cannot be
rearrested on the mere filing of the charge-sheet, as
pointed out in Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1992) 4 SCC 272.
The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, did
not press the appeal on merit, saying that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the City Sessions Judge, should
have held that there were reasonable grounds for believing
that the appellant was not guilty of any offence under that
Act, as required by sub-section 1(b) (ii) of Section 37.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. However,
we direct that the trial of the appellant be expediated.
In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed the intricate interplay between the stringent bail provisions of the NDPS Act Bail and the fundamental principle of the Indefeasible Right to Bail under the Criminal Procedure Code. The case of Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujrat, decided on January 8, 1996, holds significant weight in Indian jurisprudence, clarifying the critical timeline for seeking statutory bail. This landmark ruling, along with its full judgment, is readily accessible on CaseOn, providing legal professionals and students with comprehensive insights into its implications.
The petitioner, Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal, was an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Arrested on November 8, 1993, he sought bail, which was initially rejected by the City Sessions Judge on February 4, 1994, and subsequently by the High Court on April 19, 1994. Both rejections were primarily based on the stringent conditions for bail stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, referencing the Supreme Court's prior judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and Others.
The petitioner’s central argument before the Supreme Court was that the statutory period for filing a charge-sheet, as prescribed by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), had expired. This, he contended, entitled him to an 'indefeasible right' to be released on bail, irrespective of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an accused, facing charges under the stringent NDPS Act, could claim and enforce their 'indefeasible right to bail' under Section 167(2) CrPC due to the prosecution's failure to file a charge-sheet within the stipulated time, even if the charge-sheet was subsequently filed before the right was formally exercised or granted.
This section outlines the maximum period for which an accused can be detained in custody during investigation. Its proviso (a) grants an 'indefeasible right' to default bail if the investigation is not completed and the charge-sheet is not filed within 60 or 90 days (depending on the nature of the offence). If the prosecution fails to meet this deadline, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, provided they apply for it.
This section imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. It mandates that the court must be satisfied that there are 'reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence' and 'that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.' These conditions are much more rigorous than those under the general bail provisions of the CrPC.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the expiration of the statutory period for filing the charge-sheet. It also took note of the Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors. judgment, which affirmed that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not override an accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
However, the crucial factor in this case was the filing of the charge-sheet. While the petitioner was arrested on November 8, 1993, and his bail applications were rejected in early 1994, the charge-sheet was ultimately filed on May 23, 1994. The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench's decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I. Bombay (II).
As per the Sanjay Dutt ruling, the 'indefeasible right' to default bail is a transient right. It exists and is enforceable *only* until the prosecution files the charge-sheet. Once the charge-sheet is submitted, this right ceases to exist. Any subsequent plea for bail must then be considered under the general bail provisions relevant to the offence, which, in this case, would include the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In Dr. Panchal's case, although he *could* have applied for and potentially secured default bail before May 23, 1994, he did not. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the charge-sheet had already been filed. Consequently, his 'indefeasible right' to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC had extinguished. The Court therefore found that his continued custody was based on valid remand orders post-charge-sheet filing.
For legal professionals grappling with such nuanced timelines, CaseOn.in offers invaluable support. Their 2-minute audio briefs provide concise, yet comprehensive, analyses of these specific rulings, making it easier to grasp complex legal concepts and their practical applications efficiently.
Significantly, the counsel for Dr. Panchal did not press the appeal on its merits (i.e., whether the conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act were satisfied), likely realizing the implications of the Sanjay Dutt judgment on the default bail argument.
The Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal’s appeal. The Court unequivocally affirmed that once the charge-sheet is filed, the 'indefeasible right' to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is no longer available to an accused. Subsequent bail applications must then be evaluated under the specific provisions governing the offence, which, in this instance, included the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, acknowledging the appellant's continued detention, the Court directed that the trial be expedited.
The case of Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujrat is crucial for several reasons:
All information provided in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances. Reliance on any information contained herein is at the user's own risk.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....