IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2024

+ BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1597/2023

BHUSHAN @ VEERA ..... Applicant

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant : Mr. Amit Chadha, Mr. Atin Chadha and Ms.
Aeshana Singh, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI
Virender Singh, Narcotics Cell /OND.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed under Section 167(2) read with

Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking
grant of default bail in FIR bearing no. 237/2023 dated 20.02.2023,
registered at Police Station Bawana, for offences under Sections 21/25
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS
Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that a secret information was received
on 20.02.2023 that a person namely, Bhushan/applicant, who is
involved in the business of Heroin, will come via the road leading from

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 1 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 Bawana Police Station towards Narela and would be carrying Heroin in
large quantities for supplying it to one of his customers at J.J Colony,
Bawana. Thereafter, a raiding team was formed and at around 6:25 pm,
the team reached the spot and stopped the car on the side of the road. At
around, 06:42pm, the informer identified the suspect who was riding a
blue scooter without helmet and was seen coming towards Sector-2,
Bawana, Delhi and immediately, thereafter, the raiding team
apprehended the applicant and informed him about the information they
had received. After complying with the statutory provisions, the raiding
team conducted a cursory search of the applicant, during which a black
coloured polythene bag of heavy weight was recovered from the right
pocket of his lower. On checking the same, it was found to be Heroin
weighing 400 grams. The present FIR was thereafter registered, and the
applicant was subsequently, arrested.
3. The chargesheet was thereafter filed on 01.07.2023.
4. The applicant filed an application under Section 167(2) of the
CrPC seeking grant of default bail before the learned Special Judge
(NDPS) North, Rohini Courts, Delhi on the ground that the chargesheet
was incomplete since the same was filed without any FSL report. The
application was dismissed by order dated 13.10.2023 on the ground of
non-maintainability. It was held that the issue whether chargesheet filed
without FSL report is an “incomplete chargesheet”, is pending
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Court, in such
a circumstance, is bound to follow the law as laid down by the Division

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 2 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal v. State : 1989 SCC OnLine Del
348.
5. The learned counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that the
chargesheet in the present case was filed without FSL Report, the
chargesheet in such a case would be considered as “incomplete” and
thus, the applicant would be entitled to default bail since, the
investigation was not completed within the statutory period as provided
under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act.
6. The learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
several recent decisions, including in Mohd Arbaz & Ors. v. State of
NCT of Delhi : SLP (Criminal) No. 6876-6877/2022 and Suleman v.
The State (GNCT of Delhi : SLP (Criminal) No.1929/2023, has
granted interim bail to the accused persons, in cases where FSL report
was not filed along with the charge sheet within a period of 180 days
and held that non-filing of the FSL Report with the charge sheet would
not make the charge sheet incomplete.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted
that the present case pertains to recovery of 400 grams of Heroin, which
is a commercial quantity, from the possession of accused person who is
allegedly involved in trade of narcotic drugs. It is argued that in the case
of Mohd Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court has only opted to examine the legal issue in detail and for
the time being, interim relief has been granted to the accused.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 3 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 8. The learned APP submitted that mere non-filing of the FSL report
does not render the charge sheet incomplete, especially when there is
sufficient incriminating material on record to initiate prosecution
against the applicants.
9. The learned APP further submitted that the question whether the
charge sheet is incomplete or not without the FSL Report, is yet to be
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore the reliance is
rightly placed on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Kishan Lal v. State (supra).
ANALYSIS

10. The principal question that falls for the consideration of this
Court is, whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the statutory
right conferred under the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 167 of the
CrPC, on the ground that non-filing of the FSL report renders the charge
sheet incomplete, though filed within the prescribed time limit.
11. The inherent right to personal life and liberty, as enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and its interconnection with
Section 167(2) of the CrPC, has been unequivocally affirmed over the
years through judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court and
various High Courts. Section 167(2) of the CrPC is set out below :

“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in

twenty-four hours.—
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded
under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction
to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 4 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 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 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,—
(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;]
[(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the
accused in custody of the police under this
section unless the accused is produced before
him in person for the first time and subsequently
every time till the accused remains in the
custody of the police, but the Magistrate may
extend further detention in judicial custody on
production of the accused either in person or
through the medium of electronic video
linkage;]
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially
empowered in this behalf by the High Court,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 5 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 shall authorise detention in the custody of the
police.

[Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is

hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period
specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in
custody so long as he does not furnish bail.]
[Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an
accused person was produced before the Magistrate as
required under clause (b), the production of the accused person
may be proved by his signature on the order authorising
detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to
production of the accused person through the medium of
electronic video linkage, as the case may be.]
[Provided further that in case of a woman under
eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be
in the custody of a remand home or recognised social
institution.]”

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI:(2007) 8

SCC 770, explained the scope of Section 167(2) vis-à-vis Section
173(8) of the CrPC and held as under:

“19. A charge-sheet is a final report within the meaning of

sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is filed so as to
enable the court concerned to apply its mind as to whether
cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not.
The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefor.
One of the requirements for submission of a police report is
whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if
so, by whom. In some cases, the accused having not been
arrested, the investigation against him may not be complete.
There may not be sufficient material for arriving at a
decision that the absconding accused is also a person by
whom the offence appears to have been committed. If the
investigating officer finds sufficient evidence even against
such an accused who had been absconding, in our opinion,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 6 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 law does not require that filing of the charge-sheet must
await the arrest of the accused.
20. Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to
make a prayer for making further investigation in terms of
sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because
a charge-sheet under sub-section (2) thereof has been filed.
A further investigation is permissible even if order of
cognizance of offence has been taken by the Magistrate.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

22. It is true that ordinarily all documents accompany the

charge-sheet. But, in this case, some documents could not be
filed which were not in the possession of CBI and the same
were with GEQD. As indicated hereinbefore, the said
documents are said to have been filed on 20-1-2006 whereas
the appellant was arrested on 12-2-2006. The appellant does
not contend that he has been prejudiced by not filing of such
documents with the charge-sheet. No such plea in fact had
been taken. Even if all the documents had not been filed, by
reason thereof submission of charge-sheet itself does not
become vitiated in law. The charge-sheet has been acted
upon as an order of cognizance had been passed on the basis
thereof. The appellant has not questioned the said order
taking cognizance of the offence. Validity of the said charge-
sheet is also not in question.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

28. It is now well settled that the court takes cognizance of

an offence and not the offender. (See Anil Saran v. State of
Bihar [(1995) 6 SCC 142 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1051] and
Popular Muthiah v. State [(2006) 7 SCC 296 : (2006) 3 SCC
(Cri) 245] .)
29. The power of a court to direct remand of an accused
either in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code
or sub-section (2) of Section 309 thereof will depend on the
stages of the trial. Whereas sub-section (2) of Section 167 of
the Code would be attracted in a case where cognizance has

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 7 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 not been taken, sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the Code
would be attracted only after cognizance has been taken.
30. If submission of Mr Rohatgi is to be accepted, the
Magistrate was not only required to declare the charge-sheet
illegal, he was also required to recall his own order of taking
cognizance. Ordinarily, he could not have done so. (See
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal [(2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1927] , Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of
Maharashtra [(2004) 13 SCC 324 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 242 :
(2004) 7 Scale 733] and Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2007) 5 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 444 : JT (2007) 5 SC 529] .) It is also well settled that
if a thing cannot be done directly, the same cannot be
permitted to be done indirectly. If the order taking
cognizance exists, irrespective of the conduct of CBI in
treating the investigation to be open or filing applications
for remand of the accused to police custody or judicial
remand under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code
stating that the further investigation was pending, would be
of no consequence if in effect and substance such orders
were being passed by the court in exercise of its power under
sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the Code.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

38. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute

that it is to be read in its entirety. Construction of a statute
should be made in a manner so as to give effect to all the
provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated
by Parliament at two stages; pre-cognizance and post-
cognizance. Even in the same case, depending upon the
nature of charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer in
terms of Section 173 of the Code, a cognizance may be taken
as against the person against whom an offence is said to
have been made out and against whom no such offence has
been made out even when investigation is pending. So long
a charge-sheet is not filed within the meaning of sub-section
(2) of Section 173 of the Code, investigation remains
pending. It, however, does not preclude an investigating

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 8 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to carry on further
investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of sub-
section (8) of Section 173 of the Code.
39. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in
regard to an investigation leading to filing of final form
under sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further
investigation contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof.
Whereas only when a charge-sheet is not filed and
investigation is kept pending, benefit of proviso appended to
sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be
available to an offender; once, however, a charge-sheet is
filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only
because a further investigation remains pending within the
meaning of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code.”

13. The report on completion of investigation is filed in the form of

charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

14. The Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India

and Others : (1991) 3 SCC 655 has explained the scope of Section
173(2). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as
under:
“76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of
police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The
Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the
investigation the police officer investigating into a
cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must
be in the form prescribed by the State Government and
stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature
of the information; (c) the names of the persons who
appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused has
been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 9 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g)
whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section
170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v.
State of Bihar [(1980) 3 SCC 152, 157 : 1980 SCC (Cri)
660] that the statutory requirement of the report under
Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various
details prescribed therein are included in the report. This
report is an intimation to the magistrate that upon
investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating
Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the
court to inquire into the offence and the necessary
information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report
under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the
Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has
been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the
accused by the court. The report is complete if it is
accompanied with all the documents and statements of
witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more
need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It
is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must
be stated. The details of the offence are required to be
proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later
stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing
acceptable evidence.”

15. The principle of law articulated in the aforesaid judgments was

reiterated elaborately by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment
of CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 66, wherein it was
held as under:

“22. In view of the above settled legal position, there remains

no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the
report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the
various details prescribed therein are included in the report.
The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that
upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 10 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient
evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the
necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is
complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and
statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5). As
settled in the afore-stated case, it is not necessary that all the
details of the offence must be stated.
23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of
Section 167 of the Code would be available to the offender
only when a chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is
kept pending against him. Once however, a chargesheet is
filed, the said right ceases. It may be noted that the right of
the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in
terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only
because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof
against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied
upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet,
nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not
filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would
not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is also well settled
that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the
offender. Once from the material produced along with the
chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an
offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly
committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further
investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The
pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused
or for production of some documents not available at the time
of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet,
nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default
bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete
chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of
Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Division Bench of this Court, in Syed Maqbool v. N.I.A. :
2014 SCC OnLine Del 3966, held as under: ―

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 11 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 “31. Concerning the other three appeals, the argument
proceeds on the reasoning that the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 contemplates investigation of cognizable
offences to be completed and a report filed in the Court of
competent jurisdiction. The argument is premised on the
reason that sub-Section 2 of Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure envisages the filing of the report before a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and
that the report must be on the completion of the investigation.
The forward limb of the argument would be that an incomplete
report is no report in the eyes of law. If a complete report is not
filed within 180 days, the appellants would be entitled to
statutory bail.”
32. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads
as under : -
“173. Report of police officer on completion of
investigation.—(1) Every investigation under this
Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge

of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police
report, a report in the form prescribed by the State
Government, stating—
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if
so, weather with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under
section 170.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 12 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 xxxx xxxx xxxx

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such

manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the
action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the
information relating to the commission of the offence was
first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been
appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case
in which the State Government by general or special order
so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may,
pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in
charge of the police station to make further investigation.
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded
under this section that the accused has been released on
his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order-for the
discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which
section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the
Magistrate alongwith the report—
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on
which the prosecution proposes to rely other
than those already sent to the Magistrate during
investigation;
(b) the statements-recorded under section 161 of all
the persons whom the prosecution proposes to
examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of
any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of
the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not
essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the
public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement
and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude
that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and
stating his reasons for making such request.
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case
finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 13 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-
section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after
a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
in charge of the police station obtains further evidence,
oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
further report or reports regarding such evidence in the
form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to
(6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report
or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded
under sub-section (2).”
(emphasis supplied)

17. In light of the observations made in Syed Maqbool v. NIA

(supra), it is noted that the charge sheet filed in the present case satisfies
the conditions specified in sub-clause (a) to (d) of Section 173(2)(i).
The charge sheet is filed upon completion of the investigation, and after
the Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute an
accused for offences under which the FIR has been registered. The FSL
report, therefore, would only be corroborative in nature to the material
collected and filed along with the chargesheet by the Investigating
Officer. Hence, report of the FSL if received on a subsequent stage
would be covered under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
18. The purpose of a further investigation is to bring the true facts
before the Court even if they are discovered at a stage subsequent to the
primary investigation. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint filed
without the evidence collected at a subsequent stage is to be treated as

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 14 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 incomplete. A further investigation is not antithetical to an investigation
being completed. (Ref : Vinod Tyagi v. Irshad Ali : (2013) 5 SCC 762)
19. In the case of Taj Singh v. State (Delhi Admn) : 1988 CrLJ
1634, this court held that submitting a challan stating all particulars
required by Section 173(2), but without appending thereto Chemical
Examiner’s report, is a complete report.
20. This Court, while considering the plea of default bail on a similar
ground, in case of Arif Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 2374, had made the following observations, while
dismissing the petition:
“9. ...Learned counsel for the petitioner had primarily relied
upon the decision in Mohd. Arbaz (supra) where the Hon'ble
Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: “In all these
petitions the question that arises for consideration is relating
to the completeness of the charge sheet in accordance with law
if the same is filed without the CFSL Report. The matter would
require detailed consideration. In the meantime, all parties to
complete their pleadings. For the present, though the issue of
default bail is to be considered in the petitions since it would
require some time, without reference to that aspect of the
matter, keeping in view that the petitioners in SLP (Crl.) Nos.
6876-6877/2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 532/2022 and SLP (Crl.) No.
5190/2022 are still in custody, we order that they be released
on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the
concerned trial courts.
While indicating so we also take note of the objection put forth
by learned counsel for the respondent-State in SLP (Crl.) No.
2666/2022 who objects to the grant of bail since the petitioner
therein has not surrendered despite the bail being cancelled by
the High Court. Though in a normal circumstances we would
have taken a serious view of the matter keeping in view the fact
that the petitioner has approached this Court immediately after
cancellation of the bail and the petition has been tagged

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 15 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 alongwith similar matters and could not be taken up, we allow
the benefit of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the order cancelling
bail which is impugned in SLP (Crl.) No. 2666/2022 shall
remain stayed. List all these petitions on 17.01.2023.

10. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to grant bail to the petitioners therein, however, it has
been clearly mentioned that bail was granted without
‘reference to that aspect of the matter’. It is, thus, clear that
bail in the said case was not granted with reference to the
question of completeness of chargesheet in accordance with
law, if the same is filed without FSL report. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail in the case of Mohd.
Arbaz (supra), the present petitioner is also entitled to same
relief is devoid of merit.”

21. Thus, it has been held by this Court in plethora of decisions that
non-filing of FSL report along with the charge sheet does not fall within
the ambit of Section 173(2) of CrPC so as to consider it as “incomplete
charge sheet” and, accordingly, no right of default bail is accrued in
favour of the accused.
22. Though in case of Mohd Arbaz & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi
(supra), as well as in other subsequent cases filed assailing the orders
of refusal of grant of default bail, the accused persons have been
enlarged on interim bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the said relief
however has been granted to the accused persons on the ground of
pendency of larger issue i.e. whether charge sheet filed without FSL
report is incomplete charge sheet. However, neither the decisions
challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court have been stayed, nor any

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 16 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 directions have been given to the Courts to release the accused persons
on interim bail if the charge sheet is filed without FSL report.

23. Thus, the judicial discipline mandates this Court to decide the
matters on the basis of the law as it stands and the pendency of any
reference would not mean that the other proceedings involving the
similar issue would remain stayed. This Court is, therefore, bound by
the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal v. State
(supra) and cannot refuse to follow a judgment on the ground that the
issue is now pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v.

Jammu & Kashmir National Conference : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1140 held as under :
“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High
Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading
judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a
larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending.
We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing
deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later
Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard,
we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear
that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis
of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed
by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review
petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court
to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been
doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced
with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this
Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High
Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 17 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17
 High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case before it.”

25. This court while considering the plea of default bail on the
ground that charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC is
incomplete if not accompanied with FSL report in the case of Satish
Kumar & Anr. v. State : 2024: DHC:1258, concurred with the view
taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arif Khan v. State (NCT
of Delhi) (supra) and the law laid down by the Division Bench in
Kishan Lal v. State (supra), and dismissed the petition. This Court held
that mere non-filing of FSL Report along with the charge sheet is not
sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the charge sheet filed was
incomplete. It was further observed that the said report can be filed by
way of a supplementary charge sheet and in any case, FSL report is only
a corroborative piece of evidence.
26. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.
Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
27. It is made clear that the present application is limited to the issue
of default bail and nothing stated hereinabove is an opinion on the
merits of the case.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MARCH 18, 2024
UG

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3605/2023 Page 18 of 18
Signing Date:20.03.2024
19:42:17