Case Note & Summary
The judgment of the High Court of Karnataka arises from two criminal revision petitions filed by the accused No.3, challenging the orders of the Special Court in a NDPS case. The background involves the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), Bangalore Zonal Unit, receiving a tip-off on 21-08-2020 regarding possession of MDMA pills by Mohammed Anoop (accused No.2). A search of hotel rooms in Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru, led to the seizure of 60 grams of MDMA tablets and the arrest of accused No.2. He disclosed that he had given 40 grams of MDMA to the present petitioner (accused No.3). Consequently, NCB officials searched the petitioner's flat at Nikoo Homes, Chokkanahalli, Bengaluru, on the intervening night of 21st and 22nd August 2020, seizing 40 grams/tablets of MDMA and 180 blots of LSD weighing 2.9 grams. A panchanama was drawn. Summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were issued to the petitioner. On 24-08-2020, the petitioner along with two others was produced before the Special Court and remanded to judicial custody. The investigation continued, and on 18-02-2021, the NCB filed a complaint against ten accused persons under Sections 8(C) read with 22(C), 27, 27A, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Special Court took cognizance on 20-02-2021. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 167(2) CrPC seeking default bail, which was rejected by the Special Court on 05-03-2021. The petitioner then filed two revision petitions: one challenging the rejection of his bail application and the other challenging the cognizance order. The High Court heard the parties and framed three points for consideration: (i) maintainability of the revision against the order under Section 167(2) CrPC, (ii) perversity and illegality of the order dated 05-03-2021, and (iii) perversity and illegality of the cognizance order dated 20-02-2021. The respondent argued that the order on default bail is not an interlocutory order but an order-on-default which can be cancelled later, and therefore the revision is not maintainable, relying on decisions in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Thakur V. Hariprasad v. State of A.P., and Bhola v. State. The court began its analysis on maintainability by quoting Sections 397 and 401 CrPC and noting the respondent's objection. The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court's decision or final orders.
Headnote
Not available due to incomplete judgment text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Section 167(2) CrPC; Whether the order dated 05-03-2021 rejecting default bail is perverse and illegal; Whether the cognizance order dated 20-02-2021 is perverse and illegal
Law Points
- Release on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC is deemed release under Chapter XXXIII and may be extinguished under Sections 437(5) or 439(2)
- Order for release on bail under Section 167(2) is an order-on-default
- not on merits
- Interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) CrPC are not revisable
- NDPS Act
- Sections 8(C)
- 22(C)
- 27
- 27A
- 28
- 29
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (05) 4
Criminal Revision Petition No.324 of 2021 c/w Criminal Revision Petition No.325 of 2021
Dr. Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
For petitioner: Sri.Hasmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for Sri. Nasir Ali, HP Unique & Co.; For respondent: Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
Union of India Narcotic Control Bureau represented by its Intelligence Officer, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petitions against rejection of default bail application and order taking cognizance in a NDPS case.
Remedy Sought
To set aside order dated 05-03-2021 rejecting bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, and order dated 20-02-2021 taking cognizance; to be released on bail.
Filing Reason
Petitioner accused No.3 in NDPS case, after rejection of his default bail application by Special Court, filed revisions alleging illegal detention and improper cognizance.
Previous Decisions
Special Court took cognizance on 20-02-2021 for NDPS offences; later, Special Court rejected petitioner's application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on 05-03-2021.
Issues
Whether revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Section 167(2) CrPC
Whether the order dated 05-03-2021 rejecting default bail is perverse and illegal
Whether the cognizance order dated 20-02-2021 is perverse and illegal
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent argued that the order on default bail is not an interim order but an order-on-default which can be cancelled later, therefore the revision is not maintainable; relied on Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar and Amar Nath v. State of Haryana to contend such order is not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
the order passed on the application filed under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is not an interim order, but it is an order on default which order can be cancelled later.
the points that arise for my consideration in these two revision petitions are: [i] Whether the revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the order passed rejecting the application filed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.?
Procedural History
21-08-2020 NCB received information leading to search of hotel and seizure of 60g MDMA; arrest of accused No.2; disclosure by accused No.2 led to search of petitioner’s flat on intervening night of 21-22 August 2020, seizure of 40g MDMA and 2.9g LSD blots; panchanama drawn; summons under Section 67 NDPS Act to petitioner; 24-08-2020 petitioner produced before Special Court, remanded to judicial custody; investigation continued; 18-02-2021 NCB filed complaint under Sections 8(C)/22(C)/27/27A/28/29 NDPS Act; 20-02-2021 Special Court took cognizance; petitioner filed application under Section 167(2) CrPC; 05-03-2021 Special Court rejected bail application; thereafter petitioner filed two revision petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 8(C), 22(C), 27, 27A, 28, 29, 36A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 167(2), 397, 401, 437(5), 439(2)
