Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 709

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Mitali Thakuria, J.
T G Liana, Son Of Ginkhupa - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Inspector, Custom Hqrs. Preventive Unit, Shillong, Through The Standing Counsel, Customs – Respondent
Crl.Pet. 1625 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S D Purkayastha, J P Baishya, Mr. Jitu Saikia
For the Respondent: SC, CUSTOMS

The filing of a charge sheet within an extended investigation period, granted upon a substantiated report by the public prosecutor and judicial oversight, effectively extinguishes the accused's indefeasible right to claim default bail under criminal procedural law.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Extension of investigation period - Requirement for report by Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention - Application of judicial mind by the Special Court - Validity of extension orders when charge sheet is submitted within the extended duration. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 23)

(B) Default Bail - Indefeasible right - Right to default bail under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure is enforceable only prior to the filing of the charge sheet - Once the charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period or the extended period as permitted under the law, and cognizance is taken, the right to default bail does not survive. (Paras 12, 13, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order extending the investigation period by three months within a drug-related criminal matter. It was argued that the extension order was passed without proper application of mind by the prosecution or the court, and that no notice of the extension application was provided to the accused. However, the record indicated that the application was supported by specific reasons regarding pending reports and that the charge sheet was eventually submitted within the permitted extension timeline.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the statute requires a report from the public prosecutor detailing the progress of the investigation and justifications for continued detention. In this instance, the application sufficiently articulated the need for further investigation regarding ownership of seized items and communication records. Since the charge sheet was filed within the extended timeframe, the court found no procedural illegality in the order.

Issues: The main issues were whether the extension of the investigation period was granted in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of notice, whether the court and the public prosecutor displayed non-application of mind in the process, and whether the applicant is entitled to default bail despite the timely filing of the charge sheet.

Ratio Decidendi: A court satisfies the mandate for extension when it considers a detailed report from the public prosecutor that justifies the delay. The absence of specific notice provisions in the statute does not invalidate an order if the accused's legal representative had opportunity to participate. Furthermore, since the charge sheet was finalized within the extension granted, the indefeasible right to bail is extinguished.

Result: Criminal petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of petition challenging investigation extension order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention regarding notice requirements and default bail eligibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. statutory requirements for investigating extension under section 36a(4) ndps act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. judicial assessment of procedural adequacy and application of mind. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. final dismissal order based on procedural compliance. (Para 25 , 26)

ORDER :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. S. D. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in NDPS Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2025-26 whereby the extension order has been passed illegally for completion of investigation extending the period for another 3 (three) months.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel that the present petitioner got arrested in connection with the above referred case on 01.05.2025 and prior to completion of 6 (six) months of the statutory period i.e., 180 days, one petition was filed through the Special Public Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer praying for extending the period for another 3 (three) months, i.e., 90 days under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Considering the prayer made by the Investigating Officer, the extension order was passed by the learned Special Judge on 27.10.2025 i.e., on 175 days of his period of custody.

4. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel further submitted that without assigning any reason, the order of extension has been passed by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 27.10.2025 without even issuing notice to the petitioner and without applying its judicial mind, the order has been passed by the learned Special Judge.

5. Further, it is seen that at the time of furnishing the application for prayer for extension, there is no specific reason also assigned and there is no application of mind even by the Special PP while prayer was made for extension of time for investigation.

6. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1994 4 SCC 602, wherein, it is observed that notice should be issued to the accused while extending the period of investigation. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel submitted that though the said case was pertaining to TADA Act, but same principle may be applicable in the present case also wherein it is seen that no notice was served on the accused while granting the prayer for extension made by the I.O., through the Special PP.

7. He also cited another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 (6) SCC 484 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also expressed the view that while furnishing the application for extension of time, the Investigating Officer as well as Public Prosecutor should apply his mind and the progress of investigation also should be intimated in the said report by the Public Prosecutor before praying for extension of time and it is not merely a formality but a very vital report for which the Public Prosecutor should play an active role while submitting the application for extension of period of investigation.

8. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel accordingly submitted that in the present case, the order prima facie reveals that there is no application of mind while submitting the prayer for extension of time for investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, nor there is any application of judicial mind by the learned Special Judge while passing the order for extension on 175 day of his period of custody. Accordingly, he submitted that interference of this