The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to satisfy the essential conditions for extending the period of detention beyond 180 days under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. Both the petitions are taken up together for final disposal since they are inter-connected with each other.

2. CRR No.2100 of 2023 has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. CRR No.2105 of 2023 has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the application filed by the prosecution for extension of time for filing the challan under Section 36A of the NDPS Act has been allowed.

4. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside and quashing of order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court by which prayer for default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C was declined is concerned, the reason mentioned by the learned Judge, Special Court was that since the period of 180 days has already been extended vide order dated 11.07.2023, the petitioner was not entitled for grant of default bail. Therefore, the entire case is dependent upon the legality of order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge by which the time period was extended under Section 36A of the NDPS Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that vide impugned order dated 11.07.2023, the learned Judge, Special Court has allowed the application filed by the State for extension of time and granted three months extension on the ground that FSL report has not been received. He further submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid impugned order would show that various letters written by the SHO to the Forensic Science Laboratory seeking expert report which was still awaited has been referred and even the report of learned Public Prosecutor in this regard was also referred by the learned Special Judge and merely on the basis of the fact that FSL report was not received and mechanically the time was extended for a period of three months which is not justifiable under the provisions of Section 36A of the NDPS Act. He submitted that as per the aforesaid proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 36A, it is not only that the Public Prosecutor who is to indicate the progress of the investigation but it is also necessary to provide specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days whereas the aforesaid condition is missing in the order itself and also in the report of the Public Prosecutor. In this way, he also referred to the report of the Public Prosecutor which has been attached with the present petition as Annexure P-2 in CRR-2105-2023. He submitted that no reason at all has been mentioned in the report and even otherwise also it only says that efforts were made to collect the FSL report but has not been prepared till date.

6. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hoshiar Singh @ Gora Versus State of Punjab, CRR No.2537 of 2018, decided on 17.11.2018 in which reference was made to the other judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-39703-2013, decided on 04.12.2013 and Hargobind Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-14269-2014, decided on 14.05.2014 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid factual position whereby the essential ingredients as envisaged under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is missing, the order dated 11.07.2023 by which the extension of three months was granted is violative of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that since the extension granted by the learned Judge, Special Court was bad in law, the refusal to grant default bail as a consequence is also liable to be quashed since the complete challan has not been presented within the stipulated period of 180 days.

7. While referring to the dates of the present case, he submitted that the petitioner was arrested on