An accused has an indefeasible right to statutory bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed time, and procedural safeguards must be followed for extensions.

ORDER :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by Mathew (Accused) in Crime No.279 of 2023, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases at Chennai, dated 24.07.2024, in Crl.M.P.No.7727 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 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent Police in Crime No.279 of 2023 on 27.11.2023 for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ''the NDPS Act'']. The petitioner was found in possession of 54.50 grams of Amphetamine, a psychotropic substance, which falls under the commercial quantity category.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a statutory bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.5602 of 2024 on the 185^th day. The respondent filed a petition under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act in Crl.M.P.No.5047 of 2024, citing that the investigation could not be completed within 180 days. The trial Court dismissed the statutory bail petition of the petitioner on 03.06.2024 and allowed the petition for extension period by order dated 29.05.2024. The petitioner subsequently approached this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1093 of 2024, which was dismissed on 10.07.2024. The respondent then filed a second petition under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act before the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.7727 of 2024 on 24.07.2024, stating that the investigation could not be completed within the extended period of two months, which expired on 28.07.2024. The filing of the second petition for extension period appears to be mechanical and lacks valid justification, as the reason provided in the second extension period petition merely repeats what was stated in the first extension period petition. Further, the trial Court failed to consider that no proper notice was served to the petitioner regarding the second petition for extension period.

5. On the other hand, the extension period to complete the investigation was granted mechanically on the grounds of awaiting the Lab Report. Earlier, this Court had dismissed the revision case filed by the petitioner, primarily on the ground of whether the indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues to the accused upon the completion of the statutory prescribed period of 180 days, while the petition for extension period to complete the investigation is still under consideration. This Court, citing the maxim 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit', found that the petition for extension was filed on the 169^th day and considered before the completion of 180 days. Although the order was passed belatedly, the delay in considering the extension period petition by the Special Court could not be held against the prosecution. The trial Court's order was rightly upheld, as no perversity or illegality was found in its dismissal of the statutory bail petition.

6. Regarding the second petition for extension period, it was filed on 12.07.2024 due to the non-receipt of the Lab Report, the failure to ascertain the source of the contraband, and the incomplete enquiry into money transfer details. Notice was served to the accused in open Court, and after hearing, a 60-day extension was granted. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no notice was issued for the second extension petition, and the petitioner was neither produced in person nor heard on the matter. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandatory conditions were violated.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the principles established in the case of Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir and others vs. National Investigation Agency reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 543 . In th