IMPORTANT POINT
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a fundamental right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is contingent upon the bail application being pending at the time the charge-sheet is filed.

ORDER :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

Heard Mr. K. Boruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner, namely, Mohan Lal, who was arrested on 07.05.2022 in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 156/2022 under sections 18(c)/21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is seeking regular bail under section 439 IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for last 276 days. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet in the case was submitted on 04.11.2022, i.e. on 181st day of the arrest of the petitioner, which was beyond statutory period of 180 days, for which the petitioner has a right to be released on default bail.

4. The learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. In the aforesaid case, as per order dated 04.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 156/2022, the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet No. 192/2022 dated 10.08.2022 before the said learned Court on 04.11.2022, implicating the petitioner of committing offence punishable under Section 18(c)/21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.

6. The case diary reveals that the petitioner was transporting commercial quantity of contraband narcotic drugs in a truck, which was intercepted and recovered by the police on 11.03.2022. The suspected brown sugar weighing 3 kg. and suspected opium weighing 84 kg. were kept concealed in a special chamber made in the diesel tank of truck bearing registration no. RJ-14-GD-9213. The case diary also reveals the petitioner was trying to escape from the police when the truck was stopped in the road barrier and therefore, the police had to fire bullet on his leg to stop him from escaping.

7. Coming to the issue of default bail, the Court is conscious of the law settled by the Supreme Court of India that default bail is an indefeasible right of the accused if charge-sheet is not submitted with statutory period. As this is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband narcotics, the charge-sheet is required to be filed within 180 days from the date of remand.

8. In support of the prayer for releasing the petitioner on default bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that on 04.11.2022, when the charge-sheet was submitted after 181 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner, his bail petition was pending before the learned trial Court. In this regard, it would be relevant to quote the order dated 04.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar (Annexure-C), which is as follows:-

“04.11.2022

C.R. put up today with bail petition no. 3227/22 filed on behalf of accused Mahanlal seeking default bail on the ground of expiry of 180 days since remand.

Case is registered under Section 21(c) NDPS Act, but charge-sheet has also been received today itself being C.S. No. 192/22 dated 10.08.22. Hence, this application for default bail is not maintainable and this (sic. ought to be “thus”) rejected.”

9. Thus, the above quoted order dated 04.11.2022 demonstrates that the bail petition of the petitioner was not pending on 180th day of remand, i.e. as on 03.11.2022. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485, the relevant part of which is quoted below:-

II. Section 167(2) and the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty

17. Before we proceed to expand upon the parameters of the right to default bail under Section 167(2) as interpreted by various decisions of this Court, we find it pertinent to note the observations made by this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453, on the fundamental right to personal liberty of the person and the effect of deprivation of the same as follows:-

"13. ... Personal liberty is one of th