The court emphasized that granting extensions for investigations must adhere to procedural safeguards to protect the accused's right to statutory bail under Article 21.

ORDER :

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by Jayanthan [A4], Mohammed Yasin [A3], Sukel Ahamed, and Raja @ Jai [A2 and A5] in Crime No. 57 of 2024, seeking to set aside the common order dated 24.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.Nos. 7779, 7780, and 7778 of 2024, respectively.

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

3. The petitioners herein were arrested on 19.01.2024 for illegal possession of 4.620 kgs. of Methamphetamine and 1.425 kgs. of Abin, both of which are of commercial quantity, and were 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.Nos.7779, 7780, and 7778 of 2024 on 18.07.2024, i.e., on the 181^st 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 petitions were dismissed on 24.07.2024, and extension period to complete investigation was granted. Challenging the same, the above Criminal Revision Cases have been filed.

4. The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the petitioners filed statutory bail petitions on 18.07.2024. 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 petitioners immediately. According to the learned counsels for the petitioners, in one case, for the 182^nd 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 counsels for the petitioners, 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 counsels for the petitioners 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 08.0