The accused's right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is violated if the extension for investigation is not properly notified, infringing upon their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by Ramesh [A2] in Crime No.236 of 2024, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under the EC and NDPS Act at Chennai, dated 19.09.2024, in Crl.M.P.No.9641 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 filed a statutory bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.10086 of 2024 on 10.09.2024, i.e., on the 184^th day, which was dismissed on 20.09.2024. The dismissal was based on the fact that the respondent had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.9641 of 2024 under Section 36-A (4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ''the NDPS Act''], and the time for investigation was extended on 19.09.2024 for a further period of 45 days, directing the investigation to be completed on or before 21.10.2024. Consequently, the statutory bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Since the proper procedures were not followed in granting extension period for completing investigation, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner / A2 was arrested by the respondent Police in Crime No.236 of 2024 on 10.03.2024 for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and the 180^th day falling on 05.09.2024. The petitioner filed a statutory bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.10086 of 2024 on 10.09.2024, i.e., on the 184^th day, which was dismissed on 20.09.2024. It was only at that time that the petitioner became aware of the respondent filing a petition in Crl.M.P.No.9641 of 2024 for extension period to complete investigation under Section 36- A(4) of the NDPS Act on 30.08.2024, i.e., on the 173^rd day. The notice was served to the petitioner on 02.09.2024, which was three days before the 180^th day, and without complying with the mandatory conditions, the impugned order was passed on 19.09.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition for extension period to complete the investigation has been filed solely to deny the petitioner's accrued right to statutory bail. Such practices have been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases. 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 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.

6. 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 dec