The main legal point established in the judgment is the fundamental and indefeasible nature of the right of the accused persons to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. after the expiry of the specified period for filing the charge sheet, and the necessity for the court to inform the accused of this entitlement.

ORDER

Sashikanta Mishra, J. - In the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the orders dated 06.09.2020/08.09.2020, 02.03.2021 & 03.05.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri in T.R. Case No. 94 of 2020. All the petitioners have been implicated in the above-mentioned case corresponding to Mathili P.S. Case No. 125 of 2020 for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 05.09.2020 at about 8.00 p.m. while the police were performing evening patrolling duty and excise raiding duty at Kalapali Colony, they received reliable information that some persons were moving in a group carrying balance sticks on their shoulders with two bags containing suspicious articles towards Mathili P.S. area. When the police officers cordoned the accused persons, they were attacked by the group by means of sticks, axes and other deadly weapons. As a result, one home guard, namely, Banabasi Maharana sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter he was rescued and shifted to hospital. The police detained 36 persons and others ran away taking the advantage of darkness. The persons so detained disclosed that the luggage contained contraband ganja and they were transporting the same from Chitrakonda area to Bargaon. After weighment, 1945 kg and 400 grams of ganja was recovered and seized. On such basis, the case was registered, the accused persons were arrested and forwarded to the court of learned Special Judge, Malkangiri on 06.09.2020. Since then, the accused persons are in custody.

3. The case record was put up on 27.02.2021 as the I.O. though Spl. Public Prosecutor submitted a prayer for extension of the remand period of the accused persons by another 120 days on the ground of further investigation. The said petition was considered on 02.03.2021 and on the same day it was allowed by extending the period of investigation by another 60 days despite the objection of the defence. However, despite expiry of the said extended period of 60 days on 01.05.2021, neither the charge sheet was filed nor the accused persons were produced before the Court to inform them of their right to seek default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

On 03.05.2021, i.e., the second day of expiry of the extended period the I.O. submitted charge sheet against 46 accused persons including the present petitioners. The said order accepting the charge sheet beyond the stipulated period as well as the orders passed on 06.09.2020, 08.09.2020 and 02.03.2021 are impugned in the present application.

4. Heard Mr. J.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel through hybrid mode.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Panda that the day of first remand being 06.09.2020, 180 days was due to expire on 03.03.2021. The I.O. filed a petition seeking extension of time to complete investigation on 27.02.2021 i.e., within the 180-day period. It is further submitted that the said petition was considered and allowed on 02.03.2021, which is one day before the expiry of 180-day period. But charge sheet was not filed within the extended period of 60 days, i.e., on or before 01.05.2021, but two days thereafter. On such basis, Sri Panda has argued that the indefeasible right of the accused-petitioners to be released on bail for the default of the investigating agency as accrued on 01.05.2021 was completely ignored by the Court below and the charge sheet was accepted but without releasing the petitioners on default bail. To fortify his contention, Sri Panda has cited a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Lambodar Bag vs. State of Orissa, (2018) 71 OCR 31.

6. Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the petition for extension was filed for justified reason since several relevant aspects were required to be verified. Moreover, the