IMPORTANT POINT
The accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. remains enforceable, and the court must promptly decide on bail applications to prevent the prosecution from circumventing this right.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in the petition filed u/s167(2) of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.1619 of 2024 order dated 26.02.2024 in Cr.No.326 of 2023.)

1. The petitioner/A1 has filed a statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No. 1619 of 2024 in Crime No.326 of 2023 before the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court Under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai. The learned Judge vide order, dated 26.02.2024 dismissed the same, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioner and other accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') in Crime No.326 of 2023. The accused was arrested on 17.08.2023. Since the investigation not completed and charge sheet not filed, the petitioner on 182nd day filed statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on 06.02.2024. Earlier to it, the respondent Police filed a petition under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act on 173rd day i.e., on 06.02.2024 seeking extension of statutory period of investigation for further 90 days. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “M.Ravindran Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 485” and this Court in “Ajith Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, E-9, Thazhambur Police Station, Chennai-600130 in Crl.R.C.No.924 of 2023, dated 22.06.2023” followed the “Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir & Ors., Versus National Investigating Agency in Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2023” the impugned order passed by the Court below is not legally sustainable.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police filed counter and submitted that on 17.08.2023, at about 16.00 hours, based on the secret information, the Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station along with his team went to the scene of occurrence and after being identified by the informant and after observing all the legal, mandatory provisions under NDPS Act, A1 was arrested for having illegal possession of 32 kgs of Ganja which is of commercial quantity. Thereafter, the FIR in Crime No.326 of 2023 for offence under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act registered on 17.08.2023 at about 16.00 hrs. Thereafter, the petitioner/A2 was arrested, their confession statement recorded and remanded to judicial custody. A3 in this case is still absconding.

4. He further submitted that the petition was filed by the prosecution under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act in Crl.M.P.No.1269 of 2024 of 2024 on 06.02.2024 i.e., on 173rd day for further extension of time to complete investigation and to file charge sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition before the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai on 08.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1619 of 2024 for grant of statutory bail to him. Notice was served to the petitioner on 16.02.2024 and thereafter, the impugned order passed on 26.02.2024 and the petitioner filed a statutory bail petition on 182nd i.e., on 15.02.2024. In view of the extension petition filed earlier, the petitioner is not entitled for any statutory bail. Hence, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

5. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “M.Ravindran Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 485” had held in detail about the Fundamental Fight to Life and Personal Liberty under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., commonly referred as