Patna High Court
Pokar RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The charge sheet is deemed complete despite the absence of the FSL report, and bail is denied.
Summary
Pokar Ram, the driver of a vehicle from which 225.02 kg of doda powder was seized, was arrested and charged under Sections 8, 17(C) and 18(C) of the NDPS Act. He applied for bail, contending that the charge sheet was incomplete because the forensic laboratory (FSL) report was not attached, and therefore he should be entitled to the benefits of Section 167 CrPC. The Court examined the statutory provisions and held that the absence of the FSL report does not render a charge sheet incomplete, as additional documents may be produced later under the directory language of Section 173. Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in CBI v. R.S. Pai and Rahimullah Rahimi v. State of NCT Delhi, the Court affirmed that a complete charge sheet enables the magistrate to take cognizance and precludes default bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected. The observation was limited to the bail application and does not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether a charge sheet lacking the forensic laboratory report is incomplete for the purpose of granting bail under the NDPS Act.
- Whether an accused involved in a commercial quantity offence under the NDPS Act is entitled to bail.
- Whether the prosecution may submit additional documents after the charge sheet has been filed.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 167, 173(5), 173(8), 190(1)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 17(C), 18(C), 36A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- charge sheet
- forensic report
- Section 167 CrPC
- Section 173 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8247 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2025 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Pokar Ram Son of Pardama Ram R/o Femlai Station, P.S. - Panwara,
Badmer(Rajesthan), A/P Baba Ramdev Line Hotel Gangati, P.S. - Amas, Dist.
- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Tilak Sao, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amas P.S.
Case No. 192 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Section(s) 8, 18(C), 17(C) of NDPS Act.
3. The petitioner was arrested on the spot and he was
driver of the vehicle from which a total of 225.02 Kgs Doda Powder
was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that charge
sheet has been submitted without obtaining the FSL Report of the
seized substance and thus it amounts to an incomplete charge sheet
and the petitioner can be given benefits of Section 167.
5. The question here is not whether this is an incomplete
charge sheet entitling the petitioner to bail but whether in case of
commercial quantity the petitioner is entitled to bail. In continuation
of the material already placed on record through the chargesheet, it is
equally pertinent to note the legal permissibility of the prosecution to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8247 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/4
file additional documents at a later stage. A closer reading of sub-
section (5) and (8) of Section 173 makes it manifestly clear that there
is no bar on the investigating agency from subsequently placing on
record additional documents that have been relied upon by the
prosecution. The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v.
R.S. Pai reported in (2002) 5 SCC 82, has held that the provisions of
sub- section (5) of Section 173 are directory rather than being
mandatory. The relevant excerpt of the judgment read as under:
7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it
is apparent that normally, the investigating
officer is required to produce all the relevant
documents at the time of submitting the charge-
sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific
prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional
documents cannot be produced subsequently. If
some mistake is committed in not producing the
relevant documents at the time of submitting the
report or the charge-sheet, it is always open to
the investigating officer to produce the same
with the permission of the court. In our view,
considering the preliminary stage of
prosecution and the context in which the police
officer is required to forward to the Magistrate
all the documents or the relevant extracts
thereof on which the prosecution proposes to
rely, the word “shall” used in sub-section (5)
cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as
directory. Normally, the documents gathered
during the investigation upon which the
prosecution wants to rely are required to be
forwarded to the Magistrate, but if there is
some omission, it would not mean that the
remaining documents cannot be produced
subsequently. Analogous provision under
Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 was considered by this Court
in Narayan Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 1957 SC
737 : 1958 SCR 283 : 1957 Cri LJ 1320] (SCR
at p. 293) and it was held that the word “shall”
occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 173 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8247 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
3/4
sub-section (3) of Section 207-A is not
mandatory but only directory. Further, the
scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also
makes it abundantly clear that even after the
charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation,
if called for, is not precluded. If further
investigation is not precluded then there is no
question of not permitting the prosecution to
produce additional documents which were
gathered prior to or subsequent to the
investigation. In such cases, there cannot be
any prejudice to the accused. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the Special Court
cannot be sustained.
6. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of
Rahimullah Rahimi vs. State of NCT Delhi dated passed in CRL.
REV. P. No. 163 of 20246 & CRL. M.A. No. 2474 of 2024 in para 36
it is held as under:-
“36. In view of the settled
position of law and the dictum laid down by
the Apex Court, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the learned Trial
Court‟s order rejecting the Petitioner‟s
default bail application. As long as the
chargesheet is deemed to be complete
within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-
ection (1) of Section 190 read with sub-
section (1) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and
enables a magistrate to lawfully take
cognizance of an offence, it would not be
deemed to be incomplete. It would most
certainly not be “incomplete” because the
CFSL report is not filed with it. Thus, the
chargesheet filed on 28.02.2023 was a
complete chargesheet in terms of sub-
section (2) and (5) Section 173 and as soon
as it was filed, the statutory period stood
tolled, and the right of the Petitioner to
default bail ceased to exist and became
unenforceable. Thus, the question of default
bail under Section 36A of the NDPS Act
read with sub-section (2) of Section 167 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8247 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
4/4
the Cr.P.C. would not arise at all”.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner.
8. Pursuant to the order passed in Hanif Ansari vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 537 the matter has
been referred to the larger bench by the Supreme Court and the same
is under consideration.
9. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected.
10. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall
not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall
not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.