On 29 July, 1988 learned Magistrate enlarged them on bail on their furnishing self bonds in the sum of Rupees two lakhs each with two surety bonds in the sum of Rs.
were all set out.
The facts On 23 March, 1988 the petitioners were arrested in Bombay by officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau.
On 29 March, 1988 they were remanded to jail custody till 12 April, 1988.
1 lakh each.
P.C. In that application, the nature of the offence companymitted, the part played by the accused, the gravity of the offence etc.,
When that petition was pending companysideration, the prosecution submitted charge sheet.
They were ordered to be produced before the companypetent Magistrate at New Delhi.
On July 22, 1988 the petitioners filed an application for bail under Section 167 2 Cr.
P.C. on the ground that the charge sheet was filed after the expiry of 90 days of their arrest.
The remand order was subsequently renewed from time to time.
Therefore it was on the basis of the statements made by those persons in USA that the respondents were arrested in India.
On 10 May, 1988 the petitioners moved the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for bail.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.1989 of the Delhi High Court in Misc.
There is numberdoubt that the charge against the respondents is very serious in nature because they are alleged to have entered into a company spiracy to export heroin out of India.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Criminal Nos.
The charge sheet was filed on 23 June, 1988 for offences under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The High Court by following the decision of this Court in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986 3 SCR 802 and after companysidering the material on record cancelled the bail order.
1t was also stated that since two of the accused were earlier absconding, the investigation in the case companyld number be companypleted within the time frame.
1090 91 of 1989.
They were accordingly produced before the Addi tional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
106/89 107/1989.
S. Arora and Satish Agarwala for the Respondent.
The order of the High Court is number under challenge.
Appln.
R. Lalit, Tushar Shah and B .V. Desai for the Petitioners.
After filing of the charge sheet the High Court ordered their re arrest by cancelling the bail.
heroin from India to USA in Novem ber 1987.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J The petitioners were released on bail by the Enquiry Magistrate under proviso a to Section 167 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court said In the present cases, numberdoubt an order was passed granting bail because the charge sheet was number filed within the statutory period of 90 days but it was filed on 92 days.
The efforts of the prosecution to have the bail can celled companyld number succeed before learned Magistrate.
