ORDER :

R. T. VACHHANI, J.

1. By way of present application, the applicant – Ankush Kapoor s/o Vipan Kapoor has sought to condone the delay of 146 days caused in preferring the Criminal Appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short the NIA Act) read with Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the order dated 09/07/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Ahmedabad in NIA Special Case No.6 of 2024 in connection with the NIA Case No.RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI, whereby the application seeking extension of the period of investigation / judicial custody under Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985 came to be allowed.

2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present application is that in connection with the case registered as NIA Case No.RC – 26/2020/NIA/DLI by the respondent No.1, an application seeking extension of the judicial custody of the arrested accused – applicant herein from 90 days to 180 days under the provisions of Section 43D(2) (B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been moved mainly contending that considering the facts and circumstances stated in the application, it was not possible for the NIA to complete the investigation against the applicant – accused herein within the period of 90 days to be completed on 10/07/2025 and to file supplementary charge-sheet against him within the stipulated time and therefore, it was prayed to extend the judicial custody of the applicant – accused from 90 days to 180 days as per the provisions of Section 43D(2)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2.1 Upon filing of such application, as is reflected from the order dated 09/07/2025, Notice was sent to the applicant – accused herein through the Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad; however the applicant – accused alleged to have refused to accept the said notice and considering the report of the Jail authority and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the said application came to be allowed by an order dated 09/07/2025.

2.2 Aggrieved by the said order dated 09/07/2025, the applicant herein – accused has preferred an appeal before this Court wherein the delay of 146 days has been caused and by filing the captioned application, the applicant herein – accused has sought to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I H Saiyed appearing with Mr.Aditya Bhatt, learned Advocate for the applicant – accused has mainly contended that the delay caused in preferring the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and it was caused on account of the reasons which are beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.I H Saiyed would further submit that applicant was in continuous judicial custody since 19/04/2025 and has not been supplied with the copy of application seeking extension. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.I H Saiyed would further submit that neither any advance notice was given to him; nor he was produced either physically or virtually before the learned Competent Court to raise any such objections which has resulted into deprivation of his indefeasible right to default bail; without being heard.

3.1 It was further contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr.I H Saiyed that mainly the cause of delay is on account of non-supply of connected material and delayed receipt of the impugned order as the applicant herein – accused moved application on 30/07/2025 seeking all the relevant applications, including the order impugned to enable him to file a default bail application which was ultimately received by him on 24/11/2025 and thus the delay was caused in preferring the appeal in challenging the impugned order.

3.2 In support of the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.I H Saiyed has placed reliance upon the or