SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(UK) 218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Shashikant Purohit – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Misc. Application (IA No. 1 of 2025), First Bail Application No. 2097 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Aditya Singh
For the Respondent: Shobhit Saharia

Default bail under NDPS Act is indefeasible if no charge-sheet filed within 180 days, even if 180th day is holiday; period not extended; General Clauses Act Section 10 inapplicable. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 r/w 22, 27, 29 and 36A(4) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 187(3) [CrPC Section 167(2)] - Default bail - Accused in judicial custody for offences involving commercial quantity of psychotropic substance - 180 days investigation period expired on holiday - No complaint filed till reopening of court - No application for extension under proviso to Section 36A(4) - Default bail is indefeasible right accruing on expiry of 180 days, holiday does not extend period - Section 10 General Clauses Act, 1897 not applicable. (Paras 7,8,9,10,11,12)

Facts of the case:
Parcel checked at post office, containing 0.26 gm LSD recovered and seized. Applicant arrested next day, sent to judicial custody extended periodically. 180 days expired on 29.12.2025 (holiday). Formal application for default bail filed 30.12.2025, complaint filed 02.01.2026.

Findings of Court:
Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions including regular court attendance, no inducement/threat, no leaving country without permission.

Issues: Whether holiday on 180th day extends time for filing complaint/charge-sheet; whether Section 10 General Clauses Act applies to deny default bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Indefeasible right to default bail created if no charge-sheet filed by expiry of 180 days maximum custody period under Section 36A(4), regardless of holiday; right accrues on actual 180th day; proviso to Section 36A(4) provides mechanism for further extension in exceptional cases, not invoked here. (Paras 9,10)

Result: Application for default bail allowed; bail application disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. lsd recovered from parcel addressed to applicant; arrested. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. 180 days expired without charge-sheet or extension application. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. default bail indefeasible after 180-day investigation period. (Para 7 , 9)
4. holiday does not extend 180-day filing period. (Para 10)
5. parties dispute general clauses act section 10 applicability. (Para 11 , 12)
6. default bail granted subject to conditions and sureties. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. Applicant is in judicial custody for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 22, Section 27 and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “Act, 1985”) in NCB Crime No.111/NCB/DDN/Seiz/02 of 2025, registered at Narcotics Control Bureau, Dehradun Zone.

2. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Dehradun Zonal Unit checked a parcel Article No.EL526194355IN at Post Office, Phata, Rudraprayag Uttarakhand, which was sent by Royal Hardware, Palakkal Building Memury, Kerala Pin 686673 (Mobile No.9037797346) to in the name of Dr. S. Purohit, House No.6, Badasu, Post Office Phata, Kedarnath Road, Rudraprayag, (Uttarakhand) (Mobile No.9757183795). During checking, the said parcel 0.26 gm (26 Blots) of LSD Drugs was recovered and seized on the spot on 01.07.2025. The case has been registered as Case Crime No.2 of 2025.

3. Applicant was arrested on 02.07.2025 and on being produced before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapryag on 03.07.2025 was sent to judicial custody. The applicant’s judicial custody was extended from time to time. Admittedly, the period of one hundred and eighty days expired on 29.12.2025, which was holiday.

4. Counter affidavit, filed by the respondent no.2, is taken on record.

5. Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau, the respondent no.2.

6. During the pendency of the regular bail application, the applicant has filed a formal application on 30.12.2025 for default bail. The complaint has been filed by the respondent no.2 on 02.01.2026, on the opening of the trial court.

7. Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36 A of the Act, 1985 provides a mechanism for further extension of the investigation period in exceptional circumstances.

8. These facts are not disputed that the complaint was not filed up to 01.01.2026 and no application was filed under the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36A of the Act, 1985 and the applicant filed a formal application for default bail on 30.12.2025.

9. Default bail under sub-section (3) of Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] is an indefeasible right. Indefeasible right to be released on bail is created in favor of the accused, if charge-sheet/complaint is not filed on expiry of the statutory period. Under sub-section (4) of Section 36A of the Act, 1985, the maximum period, the accused can be detained in custody, is one hundred and eighty days. In cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, the prescribed period for completion of investigation shall be one hundred and eighty days.

10. A holiday on the 180th day does not extend the period. The indefeasible right of the accused accrues on the 180th day, regardless of it being a holiday. When the 180th day for filing a charge- sheet/complaint falls on a holiday, the period does not get extended. The right to default bail accrues on the actual 180th day.

11. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, has opposed the application for default bail. He submitted that in view of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the applicant is not entitled for default bail.

12. Per contra, Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, submitted that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not applicable in the present matter. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Criminal Appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top