ORDER :

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2023, dated 06.03.2023 by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, in and by which, the learned Principal Special Judge has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.872 of 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 8(c), r/w. 22(C) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. After the expiry of statutory period of 180 days, the respondent police, has not filed a final report. Hence, the petitioner filed statutory bail application before the trial court on 02.03.2023. The respondent Police also filed an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act Crl.M.P.No.1161 of 2023 on 20.02.2023 for extension of statutory period for investigation. The trial court, by passing the impugned order dated 06.03.2023, dismissed the statutory bail petition and allowed the extension application filed by the respondent Police. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the learned Principal Special Judge, while deciding the application for extension of statutory period of investigation on 06.03.2023, the accused was not heard before the Court either physically or virtually. In the absence of the accused, mere allowing the extension petition is a violation of principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1290 in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vrs. State of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. Thus, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has objected for grant of bail and contended that on the date the accused was represented by the counsel. Therefore the presence of the accused either physically or virtually is not warranted. Therefore there is no illegality in the order dated 06.03.2023. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision petition.

4. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

5. On a perusal of records, it is seen that the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.872 of 2022 for the offence punishable under sections 8(c), r/w. 22(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 for illegal possession of LSD stamps intoxicated frug, pursuant to which, the respondent police arrested the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody on 29.08.2022. Since the respondent police has not filed final report within 180 days as mandated under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2023 on 02.03.2023. The prosecution has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1161 of 2023 seeking time for completing investigation under section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act on 20.02.2023 before completion of 180 days. On hearing both the applications, the learned Principal Judge on 06.03.2023, allowed the application filed for extension of statutory period for investigation and dismissed the bail application filed by the accused.

6. No doubt while allowing the application filed seeking for extension time for investigation in Cr.M.P.No.1161 of 2023 on 06.03.2023, the accused was not produced either physically or virtually before the Court. It was not disputed that the accused was represented by the counsel. The Supreme Court after considering the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State Through B.I, Bombay (II) (1994(5) SCC page 410) which has been re-affirmed by subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rustam, reported in 1995 SCC Crl.830 finally concluded that the failure to procure the presence of the accused either p