SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Dhanush - Petitioner 
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, H8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai – Respondent 
Crl.R.C.No.1491 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2025 


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

The right to default bail under Article 21 is a constitutional guarantee, requiring adherence to procedural safeguards when extending investigation periods.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 18(b), 22(c), 25, 29(1), and 36-A(4) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Statutory bail - The petitioner was arrested for illegal possession of contraband and filed for statutory bail on the 181st day, which was dismissed due to an extension granted for investigation - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards, including the accused's right to be heard before granting extensions, as established in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs State of Gujarat and Judgebir Singh's case - The failure to serve notice timely constituted a violation of the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 3, 4, 16, 23)

(B) Right to Default Bail - The court reiterated that the right to default bail is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be infringed upon by procedural lapses in the extension of investigation periods. (Paras 17, 21)

(C) Procedural Safeguards - The court highlighted that the investigating agency must ensure timely communication and adherence to legal requirements when seeking extensions, failing which the accused's rights are compromised. (Paras 18, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2024 for possession of commercial quantities of drugs and sought statutory bail on 17.07.2024, which was dismissed on 24.07.2024 due to an extension for investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the extension granted was improper due to procedural violations, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail.

Issues: The main issues included whether the accused was given a fair opportunity to be heard regarding the extension of the investigation period and the implications of procedural lapses on the right to default bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the accused must be informed and given an opportunity to be heard before any extension of the investigation period is granted, as this is essential to uphold the constitutional rights under Article 21.

Result: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, granting the petitioner statutory bail.

ORDER :

(M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.)

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by Accused No.6 seeking to set aside the order dated 24.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.7867 of 2024.

2.Since the issue under consideration pertains to the grant of relief under statutory bail, the relevant facts of the case alone discussed for consideration of the above prayer.

3.The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2024 along with other accused for illegal possession of 4.620 kgs. of Methamphetamine and 1.425 kgs. of Abin, both of which are of commercial quantity, and was remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2024 for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(b) , 22(c), 25, and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ''the NDPS Act'']. They filed statutory bail petitions in Crl.M.P.No.7867 of 2024 on 17.07.2024, i.e., on the 181st day. The Special Public Prosecutor filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.7549 of 2024 for extension period to complete investigation under Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act on 11.07.2024, and the statutory bail petition was dismissed on 24.07.2024, and extension period to complete investigation was granted. Challenging the same, the above Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed statutory bail petition on 17.07.2024. The respondent had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.7549 of 2024 for extension period to complete investigation; however, no notice was served to the petitioner immediately. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the 182nd day, the notice was served on 19.07.2024, which is a clear violation of the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs State of Gujarat reported in CDJ 2022 SC 1043 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1290 , which has been reiterated in Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir and others vs. National Investigation Agency reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 543 . The Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering previous judgments, set forth guidelines in this regard. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring the judgments of the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt vs. State reported in (1994) 5 SCC 410, as well as the judgments in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453 ; Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 3 SCC 77 ; and M.Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485 , held that filing of a charge sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C . Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an accused does not have an indefeasible right to be released on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C ., simply because cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period after filing the charge sheet.

5.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Paragraph 76 of the Judgebir Singh's case [cited supra], submitted that an important principle has been highlighted, affirming that the law is now well settled the accused must be given an opportunity of hearing before the time for investigation is extended. It also held that the Courts could not have ruled that the extension period petition should be considered only after the statutory bail petition was decided, as this approach contradicts the well- established position of law. Further, it was emphasized that if the Investigating Agency seeks an extension, they must ensure that such a request is not made at the last moment.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.924 of 2023, dated 22.06.2023 [Ajith vs. State] and Crl.R.C.No.2122 of 2023, dated 08.02.2024 [Grant Victor Ikenna vs. State]. In these cases, this Court referred to the guidelines and set aside the dismissal of statutory bail petition where the trial Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top