The accused has a constitutional right to default bail when statutory time limits for investigation are exceeded, and the absence of procedural safeguards in extension requests constitutes a violation of their rights.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner (A1) in Crime No.7 of 2024 has filed the present criminal revision case seeking to set aside the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7237 of 2024, whereby, the learned Principal Special Judge under the EC and NDPS Act cases, Chennai, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner (A1) and allowed Crl.M.P.No.7059 of 2024 filed by the prosecution, seeking extension period to complete investigation under Section 36 (A)(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act").

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 learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent police had registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2024 for offences under Section 8 (c) read with Sections 22 (c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, and the petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 06.01.2024. The period of 180 days for completing the investigation ended on 03.07.2024. On the 181^st day, i.e., 04.07.2024, the petitioner filed a statutory bail petition under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.7237 of 2024. On the 178^th day, i.e., 01.07.2024, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.7059 of 2024, seeking extension period to complete investigation under Section 36 -A(4) of the NDPS Act. The trial Court erroneously dismissed the statutory bail petition, despite the fact that notice was served on the petitioner on the 180^th day (03.07.2024) in the extension period petition. On the same day, the trial Court dismissed the statutory bail petition and granted an extension for the investigation.

4. 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.

5. 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 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 counsel for the petitioner further relied on the orders passed by this Cou