Mukesh Saini vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on default bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, emphasizing that whether custody is suffered by order of the Magistrate or superior courts, if the investigation remains incomplete after the custody, and the continuous or broken periods pieced together reach the requisite period, default bail becomes a right of the detained person. The Court noted that broken periods of custody will also be counted for the purpose of default bail. In this case, the petitioner remained in judicial custody from March 22, 2024, to May 1, 2024, and then in the custody of the Drugs Inspector from May 2, 2024, to May 8, 2024, and thereafter in judicial custody. The prosecution failed to file the charge sheet within the statutory period of 90 days, filing it only on July 2, 2024. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two local sureties. The Court explicitly stated that any opinion expressed in the order does not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Saini, sought bail in a case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for allegedly selling spurious drugs. The Drugs Inspector received information about the sale of spurious drugs by M/s Magnatek Enterprises and intercepted a vehicle. A search of a godown revealed a large stock of spurious drugs. GST invoices and e-way bills from M/s Magnatek Enterprises were found, but the drugs on these invoices did not match the physical stock. The petitioner's firm, M/s Magnatek Enterprises, was visited, and scrap of spurious drugs was recovered. The petitioner was issued a notice to join the investigation. Investigations revealed that the drugs were counterfeit and were being supplied through various entities. The petitioner had been in judicial custody from March 22, 2024, to May 1, 2024, then in the custody of the Drugs Inspector from May 2, 2024, to May 8, 2024, and thereafter in judicial custody. The charge sheet was filed on July 2, 2024, beyond the statutory period of 90 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given that the charge sheet was filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that he was entitled to default bail as the charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated 90-day period from his arrest. He contended that all periods of custody, whether judicial or otherwise, should be counted towards this period. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, which held that broken periods of custody also count towards default bail. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's entitlement to default bail based on the delay in filing the charge sheet. The focus of the respondent's submissions, as reflected in the judgment, was on the gravity of the offence and the evidence collected.