Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cases in Greater Mumbai has rejected the default bail application of two accused individuals, Nadeem Salim Shaikh (accused No. 2) and Rajendra Hanuman Yadav (accused No. 4). The application, seeking bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar on November 6, 2023.
Shaikh, 38, residing in Varsova, Andheri (W), and Yadav, 36, residing in Jogeshwari (E), were arrested on April 30, 2023, in connection with Spl. LAC/C.R. No. 34/2023 registered at DCB-CID Unit-IV, Mumbai (also referred to as Dongri Police Station, Mumbai vide Spl. LAC/C.R. No. 28/2023). They face charges under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The Core of the Default Bail Plea
The applicants’ advocate, Mr. U.L. Singh, argued that his clients were entitled to default bail because the prescribed period of 180 days for completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet had expired on October 27, 2023. Mr. Singh contended that although an office report indicated the final report/charge-sheet was filed on October 17, 2023, it was still “under scrutiny” by the court’s department until the date of filing the bail application (October 30, 2023). He argued that an incomplete charge sheet, even if submitted, does not nullify the “indefeasible right” to default bail.
Prosecution’s Counter-Argument
Mr. P.J. Tarange, the learned APP for the prosecution, strongly opposed the application. He pointed out that the Sessions Department’s report clearly showed that the charge sheet in the case was filed on October 17, 2023, which was well within the 180-day stipulated period. He argued that the mere fact that the charge sheet was undergoing “scrutiny” by the court department did not imply that it was incomplete or not officially filed. According to the prosecution, the crucial factor for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is the completion of the investigation and the filing of the final report within the statutory period, which they asserted had occurred in this case.
Court’s Ruling
Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, after perusing the application, documents, the APP’s say, and all material on record, sided with the prosecution. The court’s order explicitly stated:
“From the report of Sessions Department it reveals that in the present crime charge-sheet is filed on 17/10/2023. As such the final report/charge-sheet in the present crime is filed within the prescribed period of 180 days. Completion of investigation is important for considering right of default bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Mere fact that, final report/charge-sheet was under scrutiny of the Court does not mean that, it was incomplete and it is not filed in the Court. Completion of investigation is material for seeking default bail.”
The court concluded that there was “no substance in the contention of the applicant/accused” and that their right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. had not accrued.
Consequently, NDPS Bail Application No. 965 of 2023 was rejected. This ruling underscores that the critical determinant for default bail is the timely submission of the charge sheet, and departmental scrutiny thereafter does not negate the completion of the investigation for the purpose of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.