LI Network
Published on: October 9, 2023 at 00:22 IST
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court rejected a statutory bail application filed by an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), even in the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report in the charge sheet.
The High Court’s decision came following a bail plea submitted by Hashmat Mohammadi (petitioner/accused) under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Despite the absence of the FSL report in the charge sheet, the Trial Court had previously rejected the bail application, asserting that the missing report did not render the charge sheet incomplete.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, presiding over the Single Judge Bench, stated, “The Trial Court rightfully denied the petitioner bail on the grounds of the non-filing of the FSL report with the charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner’s bail application stands rejected.”
The case’s background involved an initial tip about a person named Altaf planning to deliver narcotic substances near Zakir Nagar, Delhi. Upon this information, a team was assembled, leading to the arrest of Altaf in possession of 4.5 kilograms of contraband. Further investigations led to the arrest of Abid Hussain Sultan, who was found with 12 kilograms of heroin. Abid then provided information about the accused, a resident of Afghanistan, who was arrested with 5 kilograms of heroin concealed in his two-wheeler. The accused revealed that the narcotics were sourced from Afghanistan, with a refining factory operating in Zakir Nagar, Delhi.
The High Court’s ruling was based on the precedent set in the case of Kishan Lal vs. State [Crl.W.P.No.622/1988], emphasizing that while the police are restricted from submitting an incomplete report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, the investigation is considered complete except for expert opinions such as those from the Serologist, Scientific Officer, or Chemical Examiner.
The Court emphasized that the absence of the FSL Report in the charge sheet did not constitute an ‘incomplete report’ under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the Trial Court’s decision to deny bail was upheld, leading to the rejection of the petitioner’s bail application.
