SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

2025:CGHC:43787 Digitally signed by SYED AFR ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2559 of 2025

1. Ankit Singh Rajput S/o Shersingh Rajput Aged About 28 Years R/o Shitla Mandir Road, Ward No. 12, Chikhli, Police Station- City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. Present R/o Laxmi Nagar, Ward No. 45, Near Sai Mandir, Rajnandgaon, Police Station- Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon (CG)

... Petitioner (In Jail)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Pulgaon, Outpost- Anjora, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

28/8/2025

1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) is preferred by petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 26.7.2025 passed in Special Case NDPS No.61/2025 by which learned Special Judge, NDSP, Durg rejected application of petitioner filed under Section 167 (2) CrPC (now Section 187 (2) of BNSS) for grant of default bail.

2. Facts of case, in brief, are that on secret information being received by police on 23.1.2025 to the effect that two persons are coming from Rajnandgaon to Durg in white colour Activa moped bearing registration No.CG08-Z-0964 and they are transporting illegal contraband for the purpose of sale, a raid was conducted leading to arrest of petitioner and co-accused person who were alleged to be in possession of Alprojolam tablets 0.5 mg in a white colour bag. On 25.7.2025, petitioner filed an application under Section 167 (2) CrPC (Section 187 (2) of BNSS), seeking default/statutory bail. Petitioner moved an application under Section 167 (2) CrPC seeking default bail on the ground of non-filing of charge sheet within statutory period of 180 days, as prescribed under NDPS Act. Said application came to be rejected vide order impugned recording that on the application filed by Constable on behalf of Station House Officer, Police Station Anjora, vide order dated 21.7.2025 time to file charge sheet has already been extended upto 1.8.2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was arrested on 24.1.2025 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 22 and 8A(C) of the NDPS Act. Period of 180 days prescribed under Section 36A of the NDPS Act for filing charge sheet against petitioner was to expire on 23.7.2025. On 21.7.2025 the Investigating Officer moved an application praying for extension of time, which has been allowed by learned trial Court without considering provisions of Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act which envisages that such an application should be moved through the Public Prosecutor, which has not been done in the present case. He further contended that application dated 21.7.2025 was filed behind the back of petitioner and without any notice to him and even the order dated 21.7.2025 has been passed in absence of petitioner. Petitioner was neither present in person nor through video conferencing on the date i.e. 21.7.2025, when the order was passed, extending the period of investigation upto 1.8.2025. Under these circumstances, the order granting extension of time to file charge sheet and consequent rejection of application for grant of default/statutory bail to petitioner is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. In support of her contention, she places reliance upon the decision rendered in case of SanNaser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 308; Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 631 and Praveen Kumar vs State of CG, reported in 2018 SCC Online Chh 800.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposing the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, would argue that an application for extension of time to file charge sheet was filed before the Special Court on