ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity) challenging the order dated 24.05.2023 in C.M.P.No.1361/2023 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST(POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for brevity) and allowed the detention of the accused for a further period of 90 days.

2. Before adverting to the contentions of the petitioner to assail the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I shall narrate the undisputed facts.

a. The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 1st accused in Crime No.26/2022 of the Excise Range Office, Kallikavu. The aforesaid crime was registered on the allegation that on 24/11/2022 at 9:10 am, the petitioner had transported 66.85 kilograms of Ganja in a car bearing registration No.TN-43-Z-8264. The petitioner was arrested, and the contraband was seized consequent to the registration of the crime. Records reveal that the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional court, and he was remanded to judicial custody on 24.11.2022.

b. On 9.5.2023, an application for regular bail was filed by the petitioner as CMP No.1353/2023. However, no orders were passed on the said application.

c. In the case on hand, the 180th day from the date of initial remand fell on 23.05.2023. Seeking an extension of detention of the accused for a further period of three months, an application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor as early as 12.5.2023. The accused was put on notice, and he submitted an application on 19.5.2023 seeking an adjournment by a day to file his objection.

d. The petitioner stated that an oral application for statutory bail was filed by the petitioner on 23.05.2023. Immediately thereafter, on the same day itself, CMP No.1533/2023 was filed seeking statutory bail. No orders were passed on the same.

e. On 24.5.2023, the application was filed under Section 36A (4) of the Act, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge.

f. On 26.05.2023, CMP No.1353/2023 for regular bail was rejected, and on 2.06.2023, the application for statutory bail was rejected.

3. Sri. Vinay, the learned counsel, submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained under law. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Dutt v State through the C.B.I. Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410 and Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online SC 1290, it was submitted by the learned counsel that it is mandatory for the Court of Sessions to inform the accused with regards to the filing of an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, for extension of period and also to insist for the presence of the accused at the time when the Court considers the application for extension submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. He pointed out that except for giving the notice of the application, the court did not secure the presence of the accused either virtually or physically on the date on which the application was heard. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtram, 2001(5) SCC 453 and in M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485 it was submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Sessions Judge is bound to consider the application for default bail along with the application for extension of time and pass orders together. In the case on hand, the application for default bail was filed on 23.5.2023, and the same was rejected only on 2.6.2023, whereas the application for extension was allowed for granting 3 months on 24.5.2023. The learned counsel would then refer to the law laid down in Judgebir Singh alias Jasb