Although the charge-sheet was submitted within the stipulated 180-day timeframe, it appeared to be a mere formality, not reflecting true adherence to the provisions of the statute. Section 37 of the NDPS Act demands strict interpretation, as it pertains to an individual’s fundamental rights and personal liberty. Surprisingly, there is no evidence of any report from CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory) provided by the investigative authorities up to this point. Consequently, due to institutional delays in this regard, there is no justifiable reason to subject the petitioners to the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In reference to a precedent from a similar case, Rakesh Sha v State of West Bengal, the Bench emphasized that in such situations, the criteria for continued incarceration hinge on the presence of other incriminating evidence against the accused. However, in the present case, no such incriminating circumstances were evident.
The Division Bench underscored that filing a charge-sheet without the examination report pertaining to an offense under the NDPS Act serves no practical purpose and raises suspicions that the investigating officer might have filed it merely to meet the 180-day deadline set by the proviso to Section 36A(4) of the Act. Given these circumstances, the Court granted bail. Thus, considering these factors, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
[pdf_attachment file=”1″ name=”optional file name”]
