The accused must be afforded notice and the opportunity to be heard during remand extension proceedings, but failure of their counsel to appear does not automatically grant default bail if statutory requirements are met.

ORDER :

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J.

This criminal revision case has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.MP.No.2301 of 2025 dated 14.05.2025 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, thereby allowed the petition filed under Section 36 (A)(4) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act').

2. The petitioners are accused 8 & 9 in crime No.954 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22(b), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. The case of the prosecution is that on a specific information dated 19.11.2024, accused 1 & 2 entered in to a conspiracy for illicit transportation and sale of contraband. In pursuant to the said conspiracy, they had illegally possessed 2.1 grams of methaphetamine and the same was seized by the respondent. On their confession, the other accused persons have been implicated as accused and remanded to judicial custody on various dates. There are totally 21 accused, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A8 and A9. Further, in pursuant to their conspiracy, they had possessed 82.56 grams of methaphetamine and 12 Nos. of Nitravet tablets and the same were seized by the respondent. Since it was a commercial quantity, the offences were altered into offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they were in possession of 61.24 grams of methaphetamine and 8.69 grams of methaphetamine respectively, which were recovered by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application for bail and the same was dismissed. However, the respondent could not file final report within the stipulated time and as such, they filed application under Section 36 (A)(4) of NDPS Act for extension of time to file final report. It was allowed and aggrieved by the same the present criminal revision case has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing while extending time to file final report. Therefore, they are entitled for default bail. In fact, the petitioners filed application for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the same was returned on the ground that already the respondent filed application for extension of time under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act and the same was allowed, thereby three months of time was extended for completion of investigation in Crl.MP.No.2301 of 2025. He further submitted that the respondent did not even whisper any reason for non-completion of investigation within the stipulated time and as such, there is absolutely no ground to extend time for completion of investigation. The accused must be given opportunity of notice and hearing at the time of extending time for completion of investigation and it is indefeasible right for their default bail. It is not an empty formality and not automatic for extension of time. If any application is filed under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, the accused must be served notice and must be given opportunity of hearing. That apart, the respondent ought to have filed progress report about the investigation and must state valuable reasons for seeking extension of time to complete the investigation. 3.1 In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Crl.Appeal.No.1656 of 2022 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the public prosecutor may attach the request of the investigating officer along w