Legal Limbo: NDPS Act and Default Bail Dilemma Shake Supreme Court

Amidst the labyrinthine corridors of legal interpretation, the Supreme Court finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with a vexing question: does the failure to furnish a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report along with the chargesheet within the stipulated time under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act) warrant default bail for the accused?

In a recent development, a two-judge bench, comprised of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar, has chosen to pass the baton to a larger bench, acknowledging the cacophony of conflicting opinions resonating from different judicial benches.

The crux of the matter revolves around the lacuna created by the absence of the FSL report within the chargesheet’s ambit and its implications on the accused’s entitlement to default bail. This legal conundrum was brought to light through a Special Leave Petition challenging a Delhi High Court verdict, which rebuffed the petitioner’s plea for default bail citing the non-provision of the FSL report.

The bench’s contemplation was fueled by a precedent set forth in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 58, which underscored that the chargesheet’s validity remains unscathed even in the absence of certain documents provided by the prosecution.

Acknowledging the existence of similar pending petitions grappling with the same quandary, albeit with divergent judicial outcomes, the bench echoed the need for a cohesive jurisprudential stance. Interim bail, albeit granted in some instances, has failed to offer a definitive resolution to this legal impasse.

Thus, against the backdrop of a fragmented legal landscape, the bench’s decision to escalate the matter to a larger bench reflects a concerted effort to unravel the Gordian knot surrounding the interplay between the FSL report, the chargesheet, and the accused’s right to default bail.

As the legal fraternity braces itself for a pivotal deliberation on this matter, the quest for clarity amidst legal ambiguity persists, with advocates Akshay Bhandari, Ashish Batra, Anmol Sachdeva, and Megha Saroa navigating the turbulent waters of jurisprudence on behalf of the petitioners.

In the case of Hanif Ansari Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) No(s). 15293/2023, decided on 19.03.2024, the Supreme Court’s deliberation on this nuanced issue stands poised to sculpt the contours of legal precedent for years to come.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [68.17 KB]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top