Judgment

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. :-This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions as they arise out of same FIR i.e. FIR No.168 dated 05.03.2023 registered under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 17, 17(a), 17(b), 18 A, 18 (a) (i), 18 (c), 27(b) (ii), 27 (c), 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC at Police Station Camp Palwal.

2. Prayer in CRR No.2487 of 2023 is for setting aside the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby application filed by the petitioner for releasing him on default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. in the above-mentioned FIR has been dismissed and prayer in CRR Nos.2502 and 2505 of 2023 is for setting aside the orders dated 27.09.2023 and 31.08.2023 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby applications filed by the prosecution for extension of time to submit challan/final report were allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2023 in the FIR in question annexed as Annexure P-1 and thus, the statutory period of 180 days for completion of investigation was due to expire on 03.09.2023. However, the investigating agency failed to present the challan within this period as investigation was still incomplete. Consequently, an application seeking extension of time for completion of investigation was moved by the investigating agency before the trial Court; the trial Court vide order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) granted the investigating agency an additional time of 30 days to complete the investigation. Despite this extension, the investigating agency did not complete the investigation and moved another application before the trial Court for extension of time. Vide order dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure P-4), the trial Court granted another extension of 180 days to the investigating agency to complete the investigation. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the investigation had not been completed by the investigating agency within the statutory period, the petitioner moved an application under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of default bail. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application citing extension granted on 27.09.2023 to the investigating agency to complete the investigation.

4. It has been vehemently argued that it was incumbent upon the trial Court to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act before granting repeated extensions for conclusion of investigation. Learned counsel submits that the extension granted to the prosecution on 31.08.2023 was contrary to the law established by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others Versus State of Maharashtra and others, 1994 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 156 as no report under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-3. Furthermore, it has been asserted that the additional extension of 180 days which was granted by the learned trial Court on 27.08.2023 was against all canons of law as Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act clearly stipulates that an accused can be detained for a maximum period of only 365 days, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner had been detained for 390 days. A prayer has, therefore, been made for setting aside the impugned orders vide which extension of time had been granted by the trial Court, more so since the investigation remained incomplete even after the expiry of the statutory period. In support learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court passed in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and Anr. 2010 (1) SCR 555 and Uday Mohanlal Acharya Versus State of Maharashtra, 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452.