Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Sukhanath S/o Dhannanath – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Interim Bail Application No. 15388 of 2025, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10016 of 2025
Decided On : 03-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vineet Jain, Naresh Khatri
For the Respondent: Pawan Bhati

The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. does not arise if a court has lawfully extended the investigation period under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act before the statutory deadline.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/18, 8/25 and 36A(4) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Bail application for release on default due to failure to file charge-sheet within 180 days - Extension for investigation granted prior to expiry of statutory period lawfully extends time for filing charge-sheet and negates indefeasible right to bail - Court held that the accused’s right to default bail does not arise when extension is granted before the deadline. (Paras 12, 13, 14, and 17)

(B) Application for interim bail - Grounds of family emergency presented but denied due to severity of charges and lack of necessity for the accused’s presence during treatment - Granting interim bail in NDPS cases with serious charges would undermine legal standards. (Paras 5 and 6)

Table of Content
1. arrest and initial procedural facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding statutory periods. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. prosecution's position and counterarguments. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court's preliminary observations and reasoning. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal precedents on default bail and extensions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. final decision on bail application. (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER :

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10016/2025

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0020/2025 registered at Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 05.02.2025, the SHO of Police Station Kotdi, Bhilwara, acting upon secret information regarding illegal transportation of contraband (opium), conducted a nakabandi near Government School, Gogas. During the nakabandi, a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. RJ51-CA-4247 was intercepted. Upon following the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, a search of the said vehicle was conducted, and contraband (opium) weighing 6.36 kilograms was recovered from the trunk. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot and taken into custody.

3. The petitioner has remained in police custody since his arrest i.e 05.02.2025. The Special Public Prosecutor, prior to the expiry of the statutory period of 180 days from the date of arrest, filed an application on 31.07.2025 before the competent criminal court seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The learned trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 31.07.2025 and extended the period for filing the charge-sheet up to 04.08.2025.

4. The petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) BNSS) before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara, on 04.08.2025 at 11:00 AM, contending that the investigation was not completed within time and that the statutory period of filing of result of investigation had already expired on 01.08.2025 whereas, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court on 04.08.2025 at 12:20 PM. The learned trial court, by order dated 05.08.2025, rejected the petitioner’s bail application, holding that the extension granted by the court under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was valid and operative and that no indefeasible right to default bail had accrued to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 and, as per the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the investigating agency was required to file the charge-sheet within a period of 180 days, which admittedly expired on 01.08.2025.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that though an application dated 31.07.2025 seeking extension of time for submission of result of investigation was filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, however, the said application was not accompanied by any report indicating the progress of investigation, as mandatorily required under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel fervently submitted that mere filing of an application seeking extension, without a detailed report disclosing progress of investigation and reasons justifying detention of the accused beyond the statutory period, is not proper compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

7. It was further contended that the learned trial court mechanically allowed the said application on the same day, without recording its satisfaction regarding the progress of investigation or the necessity of further detention of the petitioner. Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the extension granted is illegal and non est, and the petit