Judgment :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. Mr. Ayan Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is entitled to get default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.PC (Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act as the Investigating Officer of the case has failed to submit the charge-sheet within the statutory period of 180 days. The period of 180 days was completed on 22.12.2024 including the first day of remand i.e. on 26.06.2024. The petitioner is entitled to get default bail on 23.12.2024. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India –vs.- Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. reported in (2024)7 SCC 147. Attention of this Court is drawn to the paragraph nos. 34 to 36 of the said report. Mr. Basu further said that the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the production of the accused before the Magistrate is a sequel to his arrest by the police and at the same time, the accused has a right to be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and the date of which the accused was remanded to the judicial custody should not be excluded. Learned Trial Court wrongly excluded the date of remand i.e. 26.06.2024 and declined to grant default bail to this accused person by holding that the charge-sheet has been filed within the stipulated period of 180 days as provided in the Act.

2. It is further assailed by the learned Advocate that the learned Trial Court erroneously excluded the first day of remand for computation of statutory period relying upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ravindran -vs- Intelligence Officer Director reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485 which was later on clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan (supra) and the Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the first day of remand is to be included for computation of statutory period. So, as per his submission in the instant case the charge-sheet was filed beyond 180 days without there being any prayer for extension on or before 180th day, then consequent order of remand passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal.

3. Mr. Joydeep Biswas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State raises objection against the prayer for statutory bail of the accused person. It is said that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet within the statutory period of 180 days in view of Section 36A of NDPS Act. So, this accused petitioner is not entitled to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet has been submitted beyond the statutory period of 180 days.

4. Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act as well as Sections 167(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribe the maximum period for which an accused person can be remanded in judicial custody without filing a charge-sheet. Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act provides that a reference to 90 days as mentioned in Section 167(2) Cr.PC shall be construed as 180 days for NDPS cases. If investigation cannot be completed within the said period of 180 days, the Special Court may grant further time upon one year if the report of the public prosecutor indicates progress of the investigation along with reasons for detaining the accused beyond 180 days.

5. In an NDPS case, if the charge-sheet is not filed within 180 days, the petitioner became entitled to statutory bail/default bail and the Trial Court erred in not extending that privilege to the petitioner. The Magistrate was obligated to deal with the application for default bail on the day it was filed. Default bail, being an indefeasible right of the accused under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr.PC. read with Section 36(A) (4) of the NDPS Act. Thus, if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period as the case may b