VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIYAN versus THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 20-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIYAN
v.
      THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE
(Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 20, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 167(2) and 439(2) – Two cases registered under NDPS
Act – One case was of recovery of contraband from the car of the
appellants-accused in Hyderabad – Another case was of recovery
of contraband from the factory, in the State of Maharashtra from
where the appellant-accused were transporting the contraband –
Combined complaint was submitted in respect of both the cases in
the Court, in the State of Maharashtra – Default bail u/s.167(2)
granted to appellants-accused by the court in Hyderabad on the
ground that charge-sheet was not filed within 180 days – Thereafter,
custody of the appellants-accused granted to the Court in
Maharashtra in respect of the second case – Court in Maharashtra
found that combined complaint since was already filed within 180
days before it, default bail could not have been granted – Application
before High Court by authority concerned u/s. 439(2) seeking
cancellation of default bail – Bail cancelled by High Court – Appeal
to Supreme Court – Held: The combined complaint having been
filed well within 180 days, High Court did not commit any error in
cancelling the default bail.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is true that there were two offences, one at
Hyderabad being at the instance of D.R.I., Hyderabad and another
by the D.R.I., Bangalore. A combined complaint taking care of
both the offences was filed before the Special Court, Omerga,
Maharashtra wherein offences committed by the accused were
also inquired and dealt with. There is ample material in the
complaint that the transportation of narcotic substance started
from Omerga, Maharashtra and was being allegedly to be taken
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 942
942
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
to Chennai and intercepted at Hyderabad. The complaint gives
the detailed facts including the journey and the interception of
appellants at Hyderabad. [Para 12][951-D-F]
2. It was not even submitted that the Court where common
complaint had been filed against the accused had no jurisdiction
to inquire and try the offence. It was due to some
miscommunication that at the time when Court passed the order
on 12.07.2018, the factum of filing of combined complaint dated
06.07.2018 was not brought into the notice of Special Court,
Hyderabad.  Although, letter of the same date 12.07.2018 was
received by Special Court, Hyderabad from Special Court, Omerga
praying for custody of the appellants, which custody was also
granted by the Special Court, Hyderabad on the next day, i.e.,
13.07.2018. [Para 11][951-B-C]
3. All these facts were brought before the High Court in
application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The combined
complaint having been filed on 06.07.2018, i.e., well within 180
days, the High Court did not commit any error in cancelling the
default bail, granted to the appellants on 12.07.2018. [Paras 11
and 12][951-D, F]
4. It is open for the appellants to file regular bail application
before Omerga Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which
may be considered on merits. [Para 13][951-H]
Pandit Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
(2008) 17 SCC 745 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2008) 17 SCC 745
relied on
Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 715 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 10524 of 2018.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.802 and 803 of 2020.
 VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIYAN v. THE INTELLIGENCE
OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv., Raj
Narayanan, SCV Vimal Pani, A. Lakshminarayanan, Abhishek Kumar,
Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted. These three appeals have been filed against
the common judgment dated 30.11.2018 of the High Court of Judicature
at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.10524 of 2018 filed by the
respondent before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated
30.11.2018, the petition filed by respondent Under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
has been allowed cancelling the bail granted to the appellants by order
dated 12.07.2018 by Metropolitan Sessions Ju

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.