High Court to hear Lawrence Bishnoi's illegal interview case on November 19

In its order dated October 28, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji observed: "The Advocate General, Punjab has filed the affidavit dated 27.10.2024 of Assistant Inspector General of Police wherein it is stated that Punjab police officers/officials have been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the 8 officers. Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge, CIA Kharar who had been given extension in services has been terminated by the order dated 25.10.2024. It appears that beside two gazetted officers who have been placed under suspension, the other officers include officers of the rank of HC, ASI, Sub Inspectors. This Court, by order dated 07.08.2024 had specifically directed that action should be taken against the senior officers who had facilitated the interview and the lower level officers should not be made scapegoats. No action appears to have been taken against the senior officers of the District. By order dated 24.09.2024, we had also directed the State to inform us by filing an affidavit of the competent authority as to why the interviewee had been kept in the premises of CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time, and whether the repeated remands to keep the interviewee there was a deliberate attempt to keep him at the same station for extraneous reasons or whether he was generally required for investigation. Explanation was also sought for as to why Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge CIA was given extension and posted there. The affidavit addressing the aforesaid concern of the Court has not been filed till date. We, therefore, direct the Director General of Police, Punjab to file an affidavit in this regard. Earlier it came to the notice of this Court that the Director General of Police had made a statement in a press conference that the interview had not taken place in any jail in the State of Punjab." 

It also observed: "The fact that the interview had been conducted within the premises of CIA staff Kharar, District SAS Nagar makes it even worse as it appears to have been conducted in connivance with the police officers. Therefore, we direct the DGP, Punjab to disclose on affidavit the basis of such statement made during press conference. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that although this Court by the order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the interview to be taken off from all social media platforms by blocking/removing all URL links but it has again resurfaced on some websites/social media handles. This Court by order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the removal of the interview. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:-
“While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on  youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."  Advocate Tanu Bedi is the  Amicus Curiae. 

The relevant excerpts also reads" "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard."

The order noted: "We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain.  The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed and connected cases under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest. We deem it appropriate to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, D.G., Human Rights Commission, the other members of the Team would be Dr. S. Rahul, IPS and Ms. Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.  It is true that freedom of speech and expression has been enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This freedom also includes a free and fair press which is an important pillar of a democracy governed by rule of law. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which include security of State, public order and would not permit incitement to an offence.  We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals. The interviewee is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses. These interviews are stated to have garnered over 12 million views. It would have an adverse impact upon youngsters with impressionable minds. Punjab is a border State and any deterioration in law and order or increase in crime could affect the national security as at times, anti national elements take advantage of the situation and often use criminals for their nefarious designs. They often get help from across the border. There is a thin line between extortion, target killings and anti–national activities. The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. xxxxX”
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media
platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. xxxxxX”.

The order reads: "Learned Advocate General assures this Court that necessary steps shall be taken to remove the interview from all the social media platforms located globally and in compliance to the order and appropriate action shall be taken against those who have facilitated the uploading and forwarding of the banned content. Further, we direct that there should be periodic check and if interviews banned vide order dated 21.12.2023 are found to have resurfaced then they be removed immediately without any further orders of this Court. This Court had constituted the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission to conduct investigation in FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2024 registered under Sections 384, 201, 202, 506, 116, 120-B IPC and 52A of Prisons Act. The SIT had been able to pinpoint that the interview had taken place within the premises of CIA staff Kharar on the basis of assessment of electronic evidence and had also been able to pinpoint the misconduct & negligence of the officers. However, cancellation report had been filed before the JMIC wherein it was mentioned that besides offence under Section 506 IPC, the aforenoted offences under which the FIR had been registered were not made out. It is important to note that the SIT has been able to establish that the interview had taken place within the premises of the CIA staff Kharar in the presence of senior officers of the Punjab Police. The office of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station was used as a studio to conduct the interview. The official Wi-Fi at the premises of the CIA staff had been provided for conducting the interview which is a pointer towards the criminal conspiracy. The report indicates that roznamcha was also forged and fabricated. The matter calls for further investigation as to for what consideration this was done and the various aspects towards offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act besides other offences need to be examined. Therefore, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. raises a suspicion of nexus and conspiracy between the police officers and the criminal. The police officers allowed the criminal to use electronic device and provided a studio like facility to conduct the interview which tends to glorify crime with the potential to facilitate other crimes including extortion by the criminal and his associates. Involvement of the police officers may suggest receipt of illegal gratification from the criminal or his associates and constitute offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the case requires further investigation. Learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that it is indeed a serious matter and further investigation needs to be carried out towards unearthing the criminal conspiracy, abetment, corruption etc. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, who is virtually present in Court submits that the SIT earlier did not have the mandate to look into the other offences including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation was not carried out regarding those aspects as the SIT did not deem it appropriate to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry."

It further reads:"We direct that a new SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar and also comprising of Mr. Nageshwar Rao, ADGP, Provisioning and Mr.Nilabh Kishore, ADGP, STF to carry out further investigation towards criminal conspiracy, abetment, forgery, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, Information Technology Act and also under any other offence. The SIT shall file a status report within a period of 6 weeks. The learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that he shall be filing an affidavit with the Registry with regard to augmentation of jail security.  At this juncture, learned Amicus Curiae has also informed the Court that an application has been received from the inmate of District Jail Nabha namely Ravinder Singh @ Lali Maur son of Baldev Singh that he is a law student and wants to apprise this Court of various issues concerning the jail. He may address this Court on the next date of hearing through video conferencing. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nabha shall provide video conferencing facilities to enable the applicant to address the Court. List on 19.11.2024.  Photocopy of this order be placed in the connected file(s)."

In its order dated October 15, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji had observed: Mr. Prabodh Kumar, the Special Director General of Police, Punjab Human Rights Commission cum-head of the SIT has filed an affidavit with regard to the completion to investigation in FIR No. 1 dated 05.01.2024 registered at Police Station State Crime, Punjab, SAS Nagar. It is state din the affidavit that the police. report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (now BNSS, 2023) has been filed on 09.10.2024 in the Court of JMIC, District SAS Nagar. In  the affidavit, self-contained note has been annexed as Annexure R-1 indicating the misconduct,  negligence and dereliction of duty by the concerned officers. The note has also been sent to the Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs  We appreciate the commendable efforts made by the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS in conducting the investigation as well as preparing the note pointing to the negligence and dereliction of duties of the officers. Learned Amicus Curiae prays for time to examine the affidavit and to apprise this Court as to whether the report of the High Powered Committed set up by the State Govt. suffered from lapses which were deliberate or intentional in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. Learned State counsel submits that they have received a self- contained note (Annexure R-1) and has assured the Court that appropriate action has been initiated against delinquent officials and prays for sometime to file an affidavit in that regard. Mr. Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submits that several steps have been taken towards installation of V-Kavach jammers and prays for time to file an affidavit in this regard. List on 28.10.2024. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case." 

Notably, on July 30 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had passed an order dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the first information reports (FIRs) lodged against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the interview given to a private TV while being lodged in high-security prison. Lawrence Bishnoi's original name is Balkaran Brar. The SLP was filed on June 11, 2024, verified on July 25, 2024 and registered on July 30, 2024. The respondents were: the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 

The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh had passed a detailed order on December 21, 2023. The High Court took note of the case of Lawrence Bishnoi's interview while hearing a totally unrelated case. 

The High Court's order reads: "While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."

The order reads: "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard. We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain."

The order reads: "The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest."

The High Court observed: "We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals....he interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses....The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. The Committee has recommended that the Government may ask the police to ensure removal of videos pertaining to Interview-I and Interview-II from YouTube/ internet, wherever possible. We would not like to wait for the government to act at its leisure but would direct the removal of the interviews. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others, (CROCP No.2 of 2023) wherein while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, it had directed the removal/blocking of the offensive content from social media platforms."

It relied on Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ‘X’ vs. Union of India and ors. (Decided on : 20.04.2021),while drawing upon Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India wherein the Court had directed the offending contents to be removed. In the event of intermediary not removing objectionable contents in pursuance to the direction of this Court, it would loose its exemption under Section 79 of the I.T. Act from its liability in cases illustrated therein. Moreover, Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides that, the intermediary shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence, or prevents investigation of any offence, or is insulting other nation; (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, Rule 3(1)(d) provides that an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force.

The High Court had issued the following directions:
i) The DGP, Punjab, is directed to immediately register two FIRs with regard to the conduct of two interviews as recommended by the Special Investigation Team in the police station having State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of the FIRs shall be carried out by the Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS, DG, Human Rights Commission. The other members of the SIT would include Dr. S.Rahul, IPS and Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.
iii) The Head of the SIT would be at liberty to seek assistance of any other officer or of any other kind, on his making a request, the DGP, Punjab shall provide all necessary help and assistance to him. A copy of the report dated 11.12.2023 and the relevant record shall be handed over to the Head of the SIT. The SIT shall conclude the investigation expeditiously and file a status report before this Court within a period of two months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is further directed:
(a) to get the URLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to both the said interviews removed/blocked/disable/restrict from all social media platforms like Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure that the Press channel, where the said interview is hosted, removes the URLs/weblinks/videos from all its news /social media platforms with immediate effect;
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(d) to direct the intermediary to preserve all the information associated relating to the offending content for use in investigation, in line with Rule 3(1) (g) of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de-reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. 

(f) All the concerned intermediaries be informed that non- compliance with the foregoing directions would make the non-complaint party liable to forfeit the exemption, if any, available to it generally under Section 79 (1) of the I.T.Act and as specified by Rule 7 of 2021 Rules: and shall make such entity and its officers liable for action as mandated by section 85 of the I.T.Act.
(g) The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab shall file a status report with regard to the timelines for installation of jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon mesh, X-ray body scanners etc. for augmentation of jail security.

A subsequent order of the High Court dated September 24, 2024 records that Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae submitted that "the interviewee had been kept at the premises of the CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time and repeated remands had been taken to keep him there which needs to be examined as to whether there was a deliberate attempt to keep him there for extraneous reasons or he was genuinely required for investigation. It has also been brought to our notice by the counsel for State of Punjab that Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge of the CIA Staff, Kharar had retired in the year 2023. However, the affidavit filed by the ADGP (Prisons) indicates that Inspector Shiv Kumar was Incharge of the CIA Staff Kharar till January, 2024. It is disconcerting to believe that an officer, who had superannuated, had been given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions in this regard and file an affidavit of the competent authority as to why he was given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. The State shall also file an affidavit in response to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to stay of interviewee at CIA Staff Kharar and as to whether the officers who have been issued show cause notices are currently at posts having public dealing."

 

The order of September 24, 2024 notes that the State counsel filed an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab in Court to submit that "show cause notices have been issued to four officers including the then SSP of the District SAS Nagar as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against them. He has also filed an affidavit of the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab indicating the progress made in installation of jammers, AI based CCTV cameras, body worn cameras, X-Ray baggage scanners and prison inmate calling system." The order states that the counsel for Union of India, one of the respondents "furnished a copy of the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Additional Solicitor General of India dated 18.09.2024 indicating that ‘no objection certificate’ to the State Government has been accorded vide letter of even number dated 23.08.2024 to the proposal of the Department of Jails, Govt. of Punjab for deployment of jammers in its jails. The said communication is taken on record." But the order records that Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submitted that "no objection certificate for installation of jammers in the Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib is still pending consideration before the Govt. of India." 

 

Notably, ABP Network news channel has filed a case in the Supreme Court through Advocate Prasanna S. on August 13, 2024 which was verified On September 13, 2024 and registered on September 12, 2024 in the aftermath of High Court's order wherein it took note of the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi in jail by Jagvinder Patial, a ABP News journalist. In December 2023, the High Court had ordered the registration of FIR and probe by an SIT headed by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar into the interview of Bishnoi. The High Court had acted suo motu in the matter concerning the use of mobile phones by inmates within jail premises. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed an order saying, "While the second petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation by the Special Investigation Team which has been constituted by the High Court, we direct that pending further orders of this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners." The second petitioner is Patial, the journalist. The case is pending before the Supreme Court. 

 

It is apparent that subsequently, Lawrence Bishnoi was put in Delhi's Tihar Jail. He was lodged there before being handed over to the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad in April 2023 even as the case being heard in Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. Gujarat Police had found the role of one Bharat Bhushan alias Bhola Shooter - a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang - in the 2021 Morbi drug seizure. Bhushan died while being in jail. Later, National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filled a chargesheet against gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar for having links with the banned pro-Khalistan outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and other similar terrorist groups in one of three terror-criminal nexus cases. The chargesheet named 12 other individuals. NIA had alleged that Bishnoi, along with Canada-based gangster Goldy Brar and has been operating his terror-crime syndicate from jails. Bishnoi is in jail from 2015. Goldy Brar is reported to be hiding in Canada. 

 

Also read: Gopalganj native Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai by a gang of Lawrence Bishnoi lodged in Sabramati Central Jail?

Patna High Court decicded against the pleader who appeared for both sides

In a classic case of professional misconduct, Bir Kishore Rai, the pleader appeared for both sides in the same case. It was grossly improper conduct within the meaning of clause (b) of section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act.  The young Pleader with a four year practice was working under the guidance of his father-in-law.

In Emperor vs. Bir Kishore Rai (1918), the Patna High Court's bench of Justices B.K. Mullick, Sir Ali Imam, Kt. and Thornhill opined that Rai's disregard of the rules was gross and intentional, and a warning will have the effect of impressing upon members of the Bar in the Mufassil the necessity of strict observance of the provisions of the law. It is not required to prove some act involving a moral stigma or proof of actual injury to a litigant but intentionally disobeying the rules is sufficient. It directed that the Pleader be suspended for a period of six month. The judgement was authored by Justice Mullick. The Pleader had signed the Vakalatnamas for both sides in the same case. 

The judgement reads:"We direct that the Pleader, Babu Bir Kishore Rai, be suspended for a period of six months commencing from the 7th of February 1918."

In its judgement, the Court observed: "so far as Pleaders are concerned, the matter seems to have been settled in this Court by the decision of the Special Bench in In the matter of two Pleaders 41 Ind. Cas. 328; 2 P.L.J. 259; 1 P.L.W. 483; (1917) Pat. 217; 18 Cr.L.J. 803. In that case the matter turned upon Order III, rule 4, sub-clause (2), which enacts that "every appointment of a Pleader, when accepted, shall be filed in Court and shall be considered to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court, by a writing signed by the client or the Pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court or until the client or the Pleader dies or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client." It was held by the Special Bench in the case above referred to that although the Pleader may not have acted out of any improper motive, gross carelessness and disregard of the rules of the profession cannot be overlooked and constitute gross misconduct in the discharge of professional duties within the meaning of section 13(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act." 

Supreme Court establishes principles on Amendment of Plaint under Order VI Rule 17, the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

Patna High Court disposed of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which had challenged an order passed by the Munsif. It upheld the order allowing an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amending the plaint although the amendment appeared to introduce a time-barred claim.

Earlier, in Dinesh Goyal @Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors (2024), the decision of the Supreme Court's division bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol had established the principles on amendment of Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a judgement dated September 24, 2024. The judgement was authored by Justice Karol. 

The appellant (original defendant) had approached the Court raising objections to the amendment carried out by the respondent (original plaintiff) in the Plaint. The dispute before the Court was, whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior Bench had erred in permitting the amendment to the plaint filed by the original plaintiffs. The Court did not "find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment." 

In the partition suit, the original plaintiff did not challenge the validity or the genuineness of the Will in the plaint at the outset. But a year later, the original plaintiff questioned the authenticity of the Will through an amendment application. He contended that establishing its genuineness was essential for determining succession based on the Will. The Court endorsed High Court's decision because without resolving the issue of the Will and its genuineness, partitioning the suit property would not be possible.

The Court's interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 is as under:

The essence of the provision is: 

• Amendment of pleading can be allowed at any stage in the legal proceedings; 
• The amendment, in question must be necessary to determine the ‘real question of controversy’;
• In an event, such an amendment is carried out by a party, post the commencement of the trail, the Courts must, while granting such leave to amend, ought to come to a conclusion that, such an amendment could not have been carried out prior to that particular point of time, when the same was actually brought.   
  

The Court relied upon several judgments to consider the law relating to the amendment of pleadings:

•     North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das wherein, the Supreme Court has held that, while considering matters relating to amendment of pleadings, the Courts should take a liberal approach, however, the same has to be in the four corners of the statutory provisions.
• Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., the Court laid down out principles for amendment of pleadings. 

 The principles are: 

• Without prejudice to the other side, all amendment ought to be allowed which are necessary to determine the ‘real question in controversy’. The same is mandatory in nature; 
• Without prejudice to the other side, in the event, such an amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiple proceedings;
• The amendments which are not permitted are- (a) while seeking amendment, the parties does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side; (b) amendment divesting the other side of certain valuable accrued right; (c) amendments that would alter the nature of the suit; (d) the prayer for amendment is malafide; (e) by the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.

General Principles for allowing amendment are:

(a) a liberal approach must be taken, instead of a hyper-technical approach; (b) Amendment to be allowed when there is an absence of a material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach; (c) However, the cause of action should not be altered by the amendment carried out.

The Court relied upon these principles and interpretation. It observed that in the present case, the dispute in hand is of a procedural aspect. It upheld the High Court’s verdict.   

Supreme Court deprecates Patna High Court's post-dated bail order again, lists it before the High Court for fresh hearing

In Upendra Manjhi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the counsel for the petitioner who has challenged Patna High Court's order dated September 11, 2024.

Reacting to the High Court's order, Supreme Court observed: "This is one of the few orders we have come across in last few days passed by the High Court, in which, without deciding the matter on merits, the High Court has granted the bail to the present petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner-accused shall furnish the bail bonds after five months of the passing of the order. There are no reasons assigned as to why the implementation of the order granting bail was postponed for five months. In our opinion, no such condition could be imposed for grant of bail to a person/accused. If the Court is satisfied on merits, it should grant bail or otherwise, reject the same."

The Court's order reads:"In that view of the matter, without issuing notice to the respondent-State, the impugned order dated 11.09.2024, is set aside. It is directed that the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63191 of 2024, filed by the petitioner, shall be restored on the file of the High Court, and shall be listed before the concerned Court on 11.11.2024, for deciding the matter/ application afresh on merits, and in accordance with law." Now Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey will have to hear bail application afresh.

Notably, in July 12, 2024 also the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih had criticised the trend of Patna High Court to pass conditional bail orders that state that the bail shall come into effect after a period of six months or a year. It had set aside a High Court's order. Justice Dr. Anshuman of High Court had said that a murder-accused should be released on bail, but only after six months in Jitendra Paswan vs. The State of Bihar. 

Delhi High Court grants regular bail in PMLA case

In it's judgement dated October 24, 2024 in Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi High Court observed: "Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. This principle is nothing but a crystallisation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 21, which says that that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Liberty is the usual course of action, and deprivation of it a detour, which is why there are safeguards imposed to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is only by procedure established by law. This procedure should be fair and reasonable, and right of the accused to speedy trial is an important aspect which the Court must keep in contemplation when deciding a bail application as the same are higher sacrosanct constitutional rights, which ought to take precedence." The judgement was authored by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri. It was reserved on October 8, 2024. The applicants had prayed for regular bail in a PMLA case of August 2019. applications were taken up for consideration 

The predicate offence was investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereafter, the SFIO) which culminated into filing of complaint case being Complaint No. 770 of 2019 under Section 447 of Companies Act , 2013 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. On the complaint filed by SFIO, cognizance stands taken. As the said offences are also scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002, a supplementary prosecution complaint was filed on March 7, 2024. 

In the prosecution complaint filed by ED, l the allegations in nutshell was that as per the SFIO investigation report, ex-promoters of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. (BSL) i.e., Brij Bhushan Singhal and Neeraj Singhal had obtained loan of Rs. 56,000 Crores from various banks and financial institutions before BSL went into insolvency and CIRP were initiated. The aforesaid accused needed to infuse capital in BSL in order to avail credit facilities from the lender banks for its teel plant in Orissa; and to do so as well as to maintain the required level of debt equity, the said accused persons assisted by their employees and close associates siphoned off funds from BSL and Bhushan Energy Ltd (BEL) by using complex web of companies and financial transactions starting from the year 2009-10 onwards. The funds were transferred from BSL and BEL to the connected category "B" and "C" companies (approx. 150 in number in which employees of BSL were appointed as Directors/signatories and whose effective control was with the promoters) terming them as "Capital Advances". 

The recipient companies through layering ultimately invested the said sum in BSL as promoter equity and for issuance of preference shares. Further, the layered funds were consolidated through bank accounts held by Uma Singhal and Ritu Singhal (the respective wives of Brij Bhushan Singhal and Neeraj Singhal). 

The said accused persons in the garb of availing credit facilities from banks used forged documents. BSL opened a Letter of Credit (LC) with consortium banks for availing non-fund based limits against forged invoices for supply of goods by M/s Jindal Steel Works (JSW) and M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (HZL). On the basis of forged documents, the LCs were discounted by using account No. of BSL on the request letters of JSW and HZL. No goods were ever supplied by JSW/HZL to BSL against the said LCs. The fraud was covered up by showing false increase in valuation of assets and fraudulent valuation and inflated figures of Stock-in-Transit. In this manner public funds to the tune of Rs. 45,818 Crores were diverted during the period 2013-14 to 2016-17 to its accounts. 

It was alleged that in the said siphoning off of funds, the main accused persons were aided, amongst others, by the present applicants. 

The judgement reads: "The right of bail was read into the provisions of Section 45 by the Supreme Court where the accused was incarcerated for about a year and the case was pending at the stage of charge." The Court relied on some recent decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of enforcement SLP (Crl) No. 3205 of 2024 dated July 30, 2024. 

The Court concluded: "Thus, where it is evident that the trial is not likely to conclude in a reasonable time, Section 45 cannot be allowed to become a shackle which leads to unreasonably long detention of the accused persons. What is reasonable and unreasonable would have to be assessed in light of the maximum and minimum sentences provided for in the statute. In cases under the PMLA that, except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The same has to be kept in mind while considering he period of incarceration which has been undergone."

The Court observed: "In the present cases, both the applicants were arrested on 11.01.2024. They have been in custody since more than 9 months. Moreover, the trial in the predicate as well as the present complaint is yet to commence and would take some time to conclude. It is also pertinent to note that the main accused and other similarly placed co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail."

It observed: "No evidence has been led to show that the present applicants are a flight risk. In fact, records would show that both the applicants have joined investigation on multiple occasions. There is no incident alleged by the respondent wherein the applicants have tried to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses."

The Court's order reads: "Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the fact that the main accused are out on bail, the period of custody undergone and that the trial is yet to commence, keeping in mind the import of the Catena of decisions of Supreme Court discussed hereinabove, it is directed that both the applicants be released on regular bail subject to them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty J.M." and subject to certain conditions. 

As a “public authority”, National Stock Exchange (NSE) is bound to reveal information under Right to Information (RTI) Act: Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Upholding the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had declared the National Stock Exchange (NSE) as a public authority, Justice Sanjiv Khanna as judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed NSE’s submission that it cannot be forced to disclose information under the transparency law because it is an autonomous body and not controlled by the government. The CIC has concluded that stock exchanges are quasi-governmental bodies which are bound to disclose information to the public under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.  

In 2007, CIC wrote: “A stock exchange being a quasi-governmental body working under the statute and exercising statutory powers has to be held to be a public authority under the Act”. It had directed NSE to put in place a mechanism for complying with the RTI Act. 

Justice Khanna endorsed CIC's decision and concluded in his order that NSE "is a ―public authority‖ as it is an authority or institution of self- government' constituted or established by notification or order issued by the appropriate Government. It is also held that the petitioner is controlled by the appropriate Government." 

Justice Khanna, the son of Justice H.R. Khanna, the renowned judge of the Supreme Court known for his historic dissent, who currently a judge of the Supreme Court is all set to take oath as the 51st Chief Justice of India.

Calcutta High Court detects error in the verdict of judge, Malda Special Court under NDPS Act, grants default bail upon expiry of 180 days

In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 And in the matter of Idul Mia, the petitioner, the Calcutta High Court's division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray granted default bail on the grounds that the chargesheet submitted against him was submitted without a forensic report, within the statutory limit of 180 days. The Court gave this decision while dealing with an application for bail in a case of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The judgment was delivered on October 8, 2024. 

The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under Sections 21C/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He was arrested on January 31, 2024. He submitted that he became entitled to statutory bail on the 181st day since the charge sheet that was submitted on the 177th day without the FSL report, is not a valid charge sheet. The FSL report was not submitted, whether by way of a supplementary charge-sheet or otherwise within 180 days. He had applied for default bail on the 183rd day. The prayer for bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court with an application for bail.

The petitioner's advocate relied on the following decisions: -
(i) Judgment and order dated 25/08/2023 passed in Rakesh Sha v. State of West Bengal, CRM (NDPS) 552 of 2023, reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2463,
(ii) Judgment and order dated 17/01/2023 passed by a Full Bench of Calcutta Court in Subhas Yadav v. State of West Bengal, CRM 146 of 2021 reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 313.

The Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that the issue as to whether or not a charge sheet without the FSL report in a NDPS case can be termed as an ‘incomplete Report’ under Section 173 Cr. P.C. is pending before the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8164-8166/2021.

Notably, Mohd. Arbaz's case  was filed in the Supreme Court on October 4, 2021 against Delhi High Court's decision of Justice Vibhu Bakhru dated November 3, 2020. It was registered on October 25, 2021, verified on October 26, 2021 and admitted on May 1, 2024. This case has been tagged with other cases from Delhi, Kerala, Haryana, West Bengal, Punjab and Gujarat. It is pending before the 3-Judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ujjal Bhuyan. It was last listed on July 18, 2024.  In its order of July 18, the Court observed: "In this batch of cases, the primary issue that arises for consideration is as to whether a chargesheet without the FSL/Examiner’s Report in a NDPS case can be termed as an `incomplete Report’ under Section 173 Cr.P.C.? During the course of hearing, it so transpired that various other questions of paramount public importance, with regard to the fairness and efficacy of the trials under the NDPS Act, also need to be resolved. Some of these issues have also been formulated by one of the learned counsel for the petitioners. One such issue pertains to the establishment of adequate FSL/Examiner Laboratories by the State Governments along with appointment of requisite technical staff to operate such laboratories. It seems to us that issues such as the current status of the FSL/Examiner’s Laboratories, creation of a robust mechanism for submission of the FSL/Examiner’s Reports within the stipulated period and the issue pertaining to follow up action taken by the States in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Union of India vs. Mohan Lal & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 379, etc. would require indepth consideration by us. Consequently, we propose to hear all the States and the Union Territories before any effective directions are issued. We, therefore, direct the Registry to issue notices to the Union of India, all the States and the Union Territories, returnable on 29.08.2024....The orders granting interim bail to the petitioners shall continue to operate until further orders."

The High Court referred to the provisions of Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act. It reads: “36-A. Offences triable by Special Courts-(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A or  for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) thereof to “ninety days”, where they occur, shall be construed as reference to “one hundred and eighty days”. Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days.”

It also referred to the relevant portion of Sections 167 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It reads: “167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction : Provided that –(a) [the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - [Substituted by Act 45 of 1978, Section 13, for paragraph (a) (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).] (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]” 

The Court observed: "We see that Section 167 prescribes the maximum period for which an accused can be remanded to judicial custody without charge sheet being filed. Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act prescribes that reference to “90 days” in Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. shall be construed as reference to “one hundred and eighty days” for the purpose of NDPS cases. However, if investigation cannot be completed within the said period of 180 days, the Special Court may grant further time up to one year on the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the reasons for detaining the accused beyond the period of 180 days. Therefore, in an NDPS case, if charge sheet is filed within 180 days from the date of arrest of the accused, no right of statutory bail accrues in favour of the accused. The question is, what happens if the charge sheet is not accompanied by the Forensic Report? Would such a charge sheet satisfy the requirements of Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act? On the aforesaid issue, there is divergence of opinion. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Sha (Supra) held that a charge sheet submitted within 180 days without the Chemical Examination Report with an observation that a supplementary charge sheet will be filed in future with the FSL report is beyond the contemplation of the proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The Bench observed:- “filing of a charge-sheet without the Examination Report in relation to an offence under the NDPS Act is an exercise in futility and raises the presumption of the I.O filing a cipher only for the sake of closing the first window of the 180 days under the proviso to 36A(4) of the Act”.

The Division Bench had also observed: "The petitioner, before us, on the other hand, has been charged for commission of an offence under the NDPS Act which requires the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence committed under the Act. This means that the CFSL/Laboratory Report becomes an essential and integral part of the investigation for establishing the charges under the NDPS Act. The Chemical Examination Report therefore becomes the most vital piece of evidence which is required to be made part of the charge-sheet.”

Notably, Advocate for the State had relied on a decision of a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. The State of West Bengal and Anr., CRR no. 41 of 2024 dated July 18, 2024, in support of his submission that if the charge sheet contains details required under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and is filed within the period prescribed, it cannot be termed as incomplete in the absence of FSL report.

The High Court has noted that the case of Jagdish Singh was a criminal revisional application filed by the accused person for quashing of the charge sheet which was filed without the FSL report. A Single Judge, noting that the issue as to whether or not in an NDPS case, a charge sheet filed unaccompanied by the FSL report is a valid charge sheet, is pending before the Supreme Court, disposed of the revisional application without passing any order. However, the Judge discussed various decisions of High Courts. It appears that the view of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is that merely because the Expert’s Report does not accompany the final report, the charge sheet cannot be said to be defective or incomplete. If the charge sheet contains details required under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and is filed within the period prescribed, it cannot be termed as incomplete, in the absence of FSL report. In this connection one may refer to the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Abdul Majid Bhat v. UT of J&K MANU/JK/0285/2022. In that case reliance was placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Mr. Sayyad Mohammad @Nasim v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Writ Petition No. 5934/2021 decided on March 29, 2022. The Karnataka High Court observed that the petitioner did not get a right to default bail merely because the Charge Sheet / Final Report filed by the Police was without the FSL report. The view of the Bombay High Court also appears to be the same as the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. A Division Bench of that High Court in Manas Krishna T.K. v. State the Police Inspector/Officer-In-Charge & Anr., reported at 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2955 held that in an NDPS case a police report containing the details prescribed under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. is a complete police report or a charge sheet or a challan even if it is unaccompanied by a CA/FSL report. If such police report is filed within the period stipulated in Section 167(2) Cr. P.C., read with Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the accused cannot insist on default bail.  

The High Court observed: "We, therefore, see that while Jammu and Kashmir High Court as well as Bombay High Court have taken the view that the right of statutory bail does not accrue in favour of an accused if a charge sheet containing the particulars mentioned in Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. is filed within the stipulated time period, even if the charge sheet is not accompanied by the FSL report."

The Court felt that "Judicial discipline warrants that for the time being, we follow the view taken by a Coordinate Bench of our Court. The issue is to be finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before which the matter is pending. In view of the undisputed fact that in the present case the charge sheet, although filed within the period of 180 days, was not accompanied by the FSL report, and that the FSL report was filed as part of a supplementary charge-sheet filed beyond 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner and after he applied for statutory bail, we have to hold that upon expiry of 180 days, the petitioner became entitled to statutory bail/default bail, and the learned Trial Court erred in not extending that privilege to the petitioner."

The judgement reads: "we direct that the petitioner, namely, Idul Mia shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, 3rd Court, Malda, subject to condition that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of substantive hearing subject to the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 355 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that the petitioner, while on bail, shall not to leave the jurisdiction of Kaliachak P.S., Malda and shall also deposit his passport, if there be any, with the Trial Court before his release from the Correctional Home. The petitioner shall also report to the Inspector-in-Charge of Kaliachak Police Station, Malda, once in a week until further orders. In the event the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above without any justifiable cause, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court." The judgement was authored by Justices Arijit Banerjee.