DR. BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 08-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL 
A 
" 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
JANUARY 8, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
S.37( 1 )(b)-Limitation on granting bail-Held not applicable where 
bail is claimed.for under proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of s.167 Cr.P.C. 
c 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : S.167(2)--Righi of accused to be 
granted bail for failure of prosecution to file challan within stipulated 
period-Held, cannot be exercised after challan has been filed. 
The appellant was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 
D 
Substances Act 1985 on 8.11.1993. The Sessions Judge as well as the High 
' 
Court, taking into consideration Section 37 of the Act and the Judgment of 
-
this Court* rejected the appellant's applications for bail. Aggrieved, the 
appellant filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that he was entitled to be released 
E 
on bail, as the prosecution failed to submit the challan within the period 
provided by Proviso (a) to sub-s.(2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973, and at that stage Section 37 of the Act would not apply. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic 
F 
Substances Act, 1985 does not exclude the application of the proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even in respect 
of persons who are accused of offences under the Act. [195-A] 
*Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and Others, [1991] l SCC 705, 
held inapplicable. 
G 
ll, 
2. If an accused 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 claim that he had an indefeasible right to exercise 
it at any time notwithstanding the fact that in the meantime the charge-
H 
193 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) l S.C.R. 
A 
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 snch circumstances, he c~nnot 
be rearrested on the mere filing of the charge-sheet. [195-G] 
B 
c 
D 
Sanjay Dutt v. State through CB.I. Bombay (II), (1994] 5 sec 410 and 
Aslam Babalal Desai v. State qf Maharashtra, [1992] 4 sec 272 relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.94 of the Gujarat High Court 
in Misc. Cr!. Application No. 1587 of 1994. 
Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the Appellant. 
Mrs. H. Wahi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 
E 
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 rej~cted by the city Sessions Judge on 4.2.1994 in view of the 
judgment of tlliS Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal 
and Others, AIR (1991) SC 558 = [1991] l SCC 705, taking into consideration 
F 
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 
G 
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 
H 
applicability of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code in respect 
.( 
-
, 
B.S. PANCHAL (DR.) v. STATE [N.P. SINGH, J.] 
195 
of an accused under N.D.P.S. Act in the case of Union of flldia v. Thamisharasi 
& Ors., JT ( 1995) 4 SC 253 and it has been held that Section 37 does not 
exclude the application of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the 
Code, even in respect of persons who are accused for offences under N.D.P.S. 
Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.