In Bail Appln. 2612/2022 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court rules charge sheet without FSL report doesn't entitle accused to default bail
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma [21-09-2023]

Read Order: Rahima and Ors V. The State GNCT of Delhi

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 22, 2023: In a recent ruling. the Delhi High Court has rejected the default bail pleas of petitioners who were arrested in cases where the charge sheet was filed without the FSL report.

The issue in the present case revolved around whether a charge sheet filed without the FSL report can be considered an 'incomplete charge sheet' and if the petitioners are entitled to statutory default bail as a result of this.

The counsels for the petitioners strongly argued that the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohd. Arbaz vs. State of NCT of Delhi [LQ/SC/2022/1994], the court has granted bail to accused individuals and has raised the issue of the completeness of a charge sheet when it is filed without the CFSL report. They contended that the Supreme Court had expressed the need for a thorough examination of this matter.

The petitioners' counsel additionally pointed out that the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Joginder Singh vs. State of Haryana [LQ/PunjHC/2022/1415], has held that the report of the FSL is a crucial document that goes to the heart of the case. Therefore, they argue that the filing of a charge sheet without the FSL report should not be considered a complete charge sheet.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma referred to the case of Kishan Lal vs. State [LQ/DelHC/1989/518], where it was authoritatively held that there is no requirement under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a police report must include a document purporting to be a report from a Government scientific expert. The court noted that while the police are not allowed to submit an incomplete report under Section 173(2) of the Code, the investigation can be considered complete, except for the report of an expert such as a Serologist or Scientific Officer and Chemical Examiner. Therefore, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offense based on a police report that does not include the expert's opinion.

The bench noted that in the case of Mohd. Arbaz, where the counsel for the petitioners argued that the Supreme Court had released the petitioners on bail, a careful examination of that order revealed that the Apex court granted bail to the petitioners without specifically addressing the issue of default bail. The Supreme Court considered the period of incarceration and left the question of default bail open for consideration.

The bench stated that it is bound by judicial precedents and, therefore, must adhere to the law established in the Kishan Lal case unless it is set aside or altered in any manner.

Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to be granted bail, and as a result, their bail applications were rejected.