- (1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 3-11-2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat in N. Case No. 112/10 under Section 20 (b) (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner dated 3.11.2011 for furnishing bail bond.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once bail is granted it will remain open until the bail bond is furnished by the accused. It is contended that it is the indefeasible right of the accused and it cannot get extinguished. In this connection the learned Counsel has referred to the provision of Section 167(1) Explanation; Sections 440, 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel has referred to and cited the decisions (Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 CrLJ 1832); (Aslam Baba Lal Desai VS. State of Maharashtra, 1993 AIR(SC) 1).
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the accused petitioner. It is contended that the indefeasible right was availed of by the accused petitioner when the application for bail was filed and the same was granted by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that the order of bail was granted on 4-10-2010 and the bail bond was furnished on 3.11.2011. It is further contended that in the meantime the charge sheet was submitted. It is submitted that the indefeasible right of the accused having been availed of, the same stood extinguished with the submission of charge sheet and the failure of the accused petitioner to furnish bail bond before submission of charge sheet. The learned Counsel in this connection has referred to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 4,5 and 6 in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharaya Vs. State of Maharashtra .;