The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of the period of detention under Section 430 of the Act of 1967 requires compliance with the mandatory provisions, including the submission of a report by the Public Prosecutor and providing notice to the accused.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 12-12-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dantewada in Bail Application No. 109/2011 affirming the order dated 9-12-2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dantewada in remand case, whereby the application filed under Section 430 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act of 1967') has been allowed and the period of limitation for filing charge sheet provided under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), has been extended to 180 days.

2. As per both the orders impugned, copies of other applications and documents, the petitioner herein was arrested on 9-9-2011 in connection with Crime No.26/2011 registered at Police Station Kuakonda for the offence punishable under Sections 121, 124A, 120B of the IPC; 39(1), 40 of the Act of 1967 and 8(2)(3) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, and was produced before the Court for remand under Section 167 of the Code. On 9-12-2011 again the accused/petitioner was remanded for 12-12-2011. After the order of remand, the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Kirandul filed an application for extension of time of detention and for filing chargesheet, under Section 430 of the Act of 1967. After considering the application, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dantewada extended the period from 90 days to 180 days. On 10-12-2011, application for release of the petitioner under Section 167 (2) of the Code was filed on the ground that the investigating agency has failed to file charge sheet within 90 days as required under Section 167 (2) of the Code. After hearing the parties, the Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the application on the ground that the period of 90 days has already been extended to 180 days. The petitioner filed application before the Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, under Section 167 (2) of the Code read with Section 430 of the Act of 1967 and Section 399 of the Code, and prayed for release of the applicant/petitioner on bail in terms of Section 167 (2) of the Code and to set aside the order of extension of the period passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, dated 9-12-2011.

3. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Sessions Judge arrived at finding that by extending the period under Section 430 of the Act of 1967 the Judicial Magistrate First Class has not committed any illegality, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release on bail, and the application filed on behalf of the petitioner also under Section 399 of the Code, was dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused both the orders impugned, copies of applications, copy of application dated 9-12-2011 filed for extension of the period of detention under Section 430 of the Act of 1967, copy of application under Section 430 of the Act of 1967 for extension of the period of detention relating to other co-accused Lingaram Kodopi, D.V.C.S. Verma & Sodhi Soni, report of the Public Prosecutor for extension of the period of detention of aforesaid three co-accused persons dated 19-12-2011, orders dated 19-12-2011 & 26-12-2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dantewada, and also the reply filed on behalf of the State/respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of remand and detention of accused under the provisions of the Act of 1967, the provisions of Section 167 of the Code are applicable with modification in terms of Section 430 of the Act of 1967. As per Section 167(2) of the Code and Section 430 of the Act of 1967, period of police remand would not be for more than 30 days and the total remand/period of detention of accused would not be for more than 90 days, but in case the investigation is not completed within the period of 90 days, the Court on the report of the Public Prosecu