The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of detention in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act can be extended to one year on specific grounds, as provided in Sec. 36 A (4) of the Act.

Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sec. 22 (c) - Sec. 36 A (4) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec. 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, which regulates the period of detention in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The provision allows for the extension of the detention period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for extended detention.
Fact of the Case:

The accused petitioner filed a bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. as he completed the statutory period of detention under Sec. 36 A (4) proviso of the NDPS Act. The investigating officer objected to the bail, stating that the investigation was ongoing and another accused remained to be apprehended.
Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the accused's default bail and extended the period of investigation beyond 180 days to one year based on the investigating officer's objection. The court found that the accused was not entitled to be released on default bail due to the ongoing investigation and the quantity of contraband involved.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was entitled to default bail under Sec. 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act after completing 180 days in judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigating officer has an indefeasible statutory right to continue the investigation in a case involving commercial quantity for 180 days, which can be extended to one year on specific grounds. The court emphasized the legislative objectives of the NDPS Act in preventing trade in illicit narcotic and psychotropic drugs and drug abuse.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the accused petitioner was not entitled to be released on default bail.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Borthakur, J.

Heard Mr. N. Uddin learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent.

2. By this petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Mahmudul Hussain Khan @ Mahmudul Hasan Khan, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No.1997/2021 under Sec. 22 ( c) of the NDPS Act.

3. The scanned copy of the petition filed by the investigating officer, as called for, by order, dtd. 30/8/2022, is received.

4. Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the accused petitioner, submits that the accused has been in judicial custody for 273 days despite he was entitled to be released on default bail under Sec. 36 A (4) proviso of the NDPS Act as he completed the statutory period of detention on 19/6/2022 on completion of 180 days in judicial custody since his remand. Mr. Uddin submits that as required, the learned Public Prosecutor did not submit any report indicating the progress of investigation for extension of time beyond 180 days for completion of investigation and no notice of hearing was given to the accused. Mr. Uddin submits that instead thereof, the investigating officer filed an objection against grant of bail to the accused that too after completion of 180 days without making any prayer for extension of time beyond 180 days for completing the investigation. However, the learned trial court by order, dtd. 20/6/2022, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 721/2022, rejected the accused's default bail and extended the period of investigation, beyond 180 days to 01(one) year based on the investigating officer's bail objection.

5. Opposing the bail application, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the learned trial Judge, on consideration of the petition filed by the investigating Officer informing the court to the effect that the investigation was on and another accused remained to be apprehended as well as hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, extended the period of investigation beyond 180 days to complete it on the 181st day of his detention. Therefore, Mr. Boruah submits that the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on default bail.

6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/12/2021, the informant along with his staff on the basis of a reliable information conducted checking of vehicles and duty stopped a vehicle coming from Gauripur side towards Dhubri town and recovered contraband items Pyeevon Spas Plus Capsules 7000 nos. and Nitrosum R 10 Tablets 400 nos. from the present accused petitioner and another co-accused.

7. It is noticed that the accused petitioner has been in judicial custody for 273 days since he was remanded in judicial custody on 21/12/2021 vide order in the case. Now, the date of first remand has to be excluded from the counting period of judicial custody for the purpose of Sec. 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act. Computed thus, the accused petitioner completed 180 days on 19/6/2022, that is, the date till which the investigating officer had the right to continue and complete the investigation in the case. Beyond the 180 days of aforesaid detention period, started on and from the date 20/6/2022 that is, 181st day.

8. The period of detention in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act is regulated by 36 A (4) of the said Act as extracted herein below :

"(4): In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under sec. 19 or sec. 24 or sec. 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days": Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document