ORDER :

Accused No.1 in Crime No.93/2021 registered by the Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru City, has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.06.2021 passed in the said crime number by the court of XLI Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are:

On the basis of a report submitted by the second respondent herein, FIR was registered in Crime No.93/2021 by the Koramangala Police on 01.04.2021 against the petitioner and another for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1985").

3. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant received an information on 01.04.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. to the effect that a person standing in front of Yamuna Block of National Games Village, Koramangala, was trying to sell LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) substance to the public and immediately thereafter the respondent -Police rushed to the said spot and apprehended the petitioner and from his person, they seized 46 strips of LSD totally weighing 0.89 grams. Thereafterwards mahazar was drawn and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Koramangala Police Station along with the seized substance and subsequently he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 02.04.2021, who in turn remanded him to judicial custody. Thereafterwards periodically the learned Magistrate kept on remanding the petitioner to the judicial custody and on 07.06.2021, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), seeking statutory bail on the ground that the Police have failed to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and file the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate on receipt of such an application has passed the order impugned on 8.6.2021 directing the office to submit the entire papers to the Special Court as provided under Section 36A of the Act of 1985 and also directing the Investigating Officer to produce the petitioner/accused immediately before the Special Court and dismissed the application under Section 167(2) of the Code as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Hashmath Pasha for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has remanded the petitioner to custody even after expiry of the first fifteen days, which was totally illegal. He submits that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand the petitioner after expiry of the first fifteen days of remand and therefore, the custody of the petitioner has resulted in illegal detention. He also submits that the Police have wrongly invoked Section 22(c) of the Act of 1985 whereas having regard to the quantity of the substance seized which is only 0.89 grams, which amounts to inter-mediate quantity, an offence under Section 22(b) of the Act of 1985 is attracted against the petitioner. He submits that for the offence under Section 22(b) of the Act of 1985, the period for completion of the investigation is 60 days and the Police having failed to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet within the said period, the petitioner is entitled for a statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. He submits that before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has exercised his right accrued to him under Section 167(2) of the Code for the lapse of the Police in completing the investigation within the prescribed period and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered his application favourably. He submits that the right for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code has now been considered as a fundamental right and therefore, the same cannot be taken away other than in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, lea