ORDER :

1. Heard the submission of Sri V. Gopalakrishna Gokhley, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No. 5 and also Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotic Bureau.

2. Seeking to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in Crl. M.P. No. 1673 of 2022 in Crime NCB F. No. 48/1/10/2021/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD, dated 12.07.2022, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

3. The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 5 moved an application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “NDPS Act”) r/w. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The trial Court, through order in Crl. M.P. No. 1673 of 2022 in Crime NCB F. No. 48/1/10/2021/ NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD, dated 12.07.2022, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash the said order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No. 5 submits that the petitioner was remanded to Judicial custody and he was in Judicial custody pending investigation and the respondent failed to file charge sheet within the statutory period of 180 days as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and, therefore, he moved an application for grant of statutory bail, but the trial Court has dismissed the said application and as the order rendered by the trial Court is ex-facie illegal, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition for quashment of the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the Investigating Agency is under obligation to complete investigation and submit Final Report time-bound and it is mandate of law and Section 167 Cr.P.C. lays down that in case investigation is not completed within the stipulated time, an indefeasible right accrues to the petitioner/Accused No. 5 to move an application before the competent Court to release him on bail and the same is done by the petitioner herein, but the trial Court, without entertaining the said request, has dismissed the said application. Learned counsel also states that even if the Accused fails to submit before the Court that the statutory period is completed, yet, in case charge sheet is not filed, it is the duty of the trial Court to verify and release the Accused on bail. But, in the case on hand, even though an application was moved to that effect, the trial Court dishonoured the request, which is highly unjustifiable. Learned counsel further submits that not only under Section 167 Cr.P.C. the Accused would get a right for being enlarged on bail, but such right accrues even under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paras-37 to 40 of the said order observed as follows:

“37. This Court had occasion to review the entire case law on the subject in Union of India vs. Nirala Yadav, (2014) 9 SCC 457. In that decision, reference was made to Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 and the conclusions arrived at in that decision. We are concerned with conclusion No. 3 which reads as follows:

“(3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.

38. This Court also dealt with the decision rendered in Sanjay Dutt and noted that the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench is to the effect that if the charge sheet is not filed and the right for ‘default bail’ has ripened into the status of indefe