The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused is entitled to default bail if the prosecution fails to file a charge sheet within the prescribed time and if the accused is not informed of their right to default bail.

ORDER

1. Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.S.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State have been heard through hybrid mode.

2. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Crl.P.C'), the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 09.07.2020 and 06.08.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,-cum-Special Judge, Koraput- Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 03 of 2020 wherein the prayer of the prosecution to extend the period for completion of investigation and to file chargesheet beyond the period of 180 days has been allowed on two occasions without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his counsel on either occasion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that law is well settled in the case of Lambodar Bag v. State of Orissa reported in (2018) 71 OCR-31, Iswar Tiwari v. State of Odisha reported in (2020) 80 OCR 289, CRLMC No. 1358 of 2020 Rohiteswar Meher v. State of Orissa decided on 08.02.2021 and CRLMC 446 of 2021 Kishore Pujari vs State decided on 19.03.2021, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the prosecution is duty bound to serve a copy of a petition filed for extension of time for filling charge sheet beyond the statutory period of 180 day alongwith the report of the Public Prosecutor well in advance on the accused and order for extending time for completing the investigation cannot be passed without hearing the accused. His further submission is that in the present case, extension of time has been allowed on two occasions on the very day the petitions were filed by the investigating officer (in short the 'IO') i.e. on 9.7.2020 and 6.8.2020 by the learned trial court after hearing the learned Special P.P. only and without hearing the petitioner or his counsel. He further submits that the learned trial court has not even directed for service of the copy of the petition/memo on the petitioner or his counsel and allowed extension on the very day the petitions were filed. His specific averment in the writ petition is that the chargesheet has been filed after one year and nineteen days which is not permissible. He finally submits that as the extension of time was illegal, the petitioner is entitled to be released on default bail.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel objects to such prayer stating that after the learned Court below granted extension of time, preliminary chargesheet dated 07.09.2020 has been filed against the petitioner for commission of offences under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S Act within the extension granted and the case is awaiting appearance of the co - accused against whom supplementary chargesheet dated 30.01.2021 has been filed showing him as an absconder. He also submits the contention of the learned counsel that chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner after one year is therefore factually incorrect. He finally submits that as preliminary chargesheet and final chargesheet have been filed, the petitioner should not be released on bail. He relies on the case of M. Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer : (2021) 2 SCC 485 in support of his submissions.

5. For the purpose of deciding this application, reference To Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Crl.P.C') and Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act are necessary and the relevant provisions are quoted below.

'Section 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.- (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided