ORDER :

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed assailing the order dated 03.10.2023 (Annex.A/1) passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Sidhi in connection with Crime No.294/2023 for commission of offence under section 8,21,22 and 29 of NDPS Act whereby application filed by the applicant under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C for grant of default bail has been rejected on the ground that though charge sheet has not been filed within a period of 90 days but time granted for filing the charge sheet had already been extended to 180 days by the incharge court.

2. As per prosecution story in the intervening night of 17/18-06.2023, 10 gram smack was seized from the possession of the applicant. The seized quantity of contraband was higher than the minimum quantity but less than the commercial quantity.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that applicant was arrested on 17/18-06.2023 in connection with Crime No.294/2023 of P.S.Bahari District Sidhi for offence punishable under section 8, 21, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act. He was produced before the court on 18.06.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. It was incumbent on the part of the investigating agency to file charge sheet within a period of 60 days i.e on 18.08.2023 but it was not filed. It is contended that applicant made an application under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C on 27.09.2023, seeking default bail on the ground of non-filing of charge sheet within a period of 90 days from the date of police custody of accused but same was dismissed on 03.10.2023 on the ground that time limit for filing the charge sheet has already been extended upto the period of 180 days by the incharge judge by order dated 27.09.2023. As such learned trial court vide impugned order dated 03.10.2023 dismissed the application for default bail. Hence, this revision.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State at length and perused the case diary.

5. Learned counsel for the State by opposing the bail application submitted that for submission of charge sheet the period is 180 days as per section 36-A of NDPS Act. As learned incharge judge had already extended the time period of filing charge sheet. Therefore, learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error in dismissing the default bail application under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is entitled for default bail as investigating agency, in the instant case, has failed to file the charge sheet before the Special Judge within the stipulated period.

7. In order to test merit of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that applicant is entitled to default bail or not, it is necessary to examine the provision of section 167(2) of Cr.P.C and section 36-A of NDPS Act, 1985 which are reproduced as under :-

“Section 167(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 that-

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty day