The detention period for statutory bail is computed from the date of remand authorized by the Magistrate, not from the date of arrest.

ORDER :

The Criminal Revision challenges the order dated 21.10.2024, dismissing the petition in Crl.M.P.No.11633 of 2024 filed by the petitioners, seeking default bail.

2. It is the case of the petitioners, that they were arrested for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 18(b), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act @ under Sections 8(c) r/w 18(C), 22(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act on 19.01.2024 and remanded on 20.01.2024; that the allegation against the petitioners/A2, A3 and A5, is that they were found in possession of 4.620 Kgs of Methamphetamine and 1.425 Kgs of Abin along with two other accused; that since the respondent did not file the final report within the statutory period of 180 days, the respondent sought for extension and the trial Court had granted 90 days for completion of investigation; that the respondent ought to have filed the final report before 270 days; that the 270^th day fell on 14.10.2024; that the respondent filed the final report only on 15.10.2024; and hence the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail.

3. The trial Court dismissed the said petition, on the ground that the final report was filed on the 270^th day i.e., 14.10.2024 and therefore, the right to obtain default bail was extinguished.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his submissions made before the trial Court and asserted that the final report was filed only on 14.10.2024 and in support of his submission, had pointed out to the portion of the impugned order wherein, the trial Court had recorded the fact that the learned Public Prosecutor had stated that the final report was filed on 15.10.2024.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra submitted that the trial Court had verified the records and found that the final report was filed on 14.10.2024, although the learned Public Prosecutor had mistakenly stated that the final report was filed on 15.10.2024.

6. This Court in order to ascertain the exact date on which the final report was filed, had called for the records. The learned trial Judge had initially sent a letter without the records confirming that the final report was filed on 14.10.2024. However, pursuant to another order, the trial Court had sent the copy of documents downloaded from e-filing CIS login.

7. In the meanwhile, since it was represented by both the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), that sometimes due to server issues, even if a particular document is uploaded by the police on a particular day, the acknowledgement is received much later, this Court to understand the working of e-filing system and also to clarify the legal issues involved, appointed Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel, as an Amicus Curiae.

8. (a) Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel, submitted that the period of detention for the purpose of computing the statutory period prescribed under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C . or Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, should be computed from the date of detention authorised by the Magistrate and not from the date of arrest. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaganti Satyanarayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (1986) 3 SCC 141 and in Enforcement Directorate, vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 147.

(b) The learned senior counsel on facts therefore submitted that the date of remand in this case was 20.01.2024 and hence, the 270^th day fell on 15.10.2024 and not on 14.10.2024 and produced a tabular column, which reads as follows: