IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3143-2025 (O&M)

Prince ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CRM-M-71567-2025 (O&M)

Prince ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

By virtue of order dated 14.11.2025, the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar has accorded permission to the Investigating Agency to present challan beyond the period of 180 days, and by virtue of order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, the application for bail filed by the petitioner, while invoking the provisions of Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been dismissed.

2. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order dated 14.11.2025, the present petition seeking for quashing of abovesaid order under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed, and with regard to subsequent order dated 19.11.2025, the revision petition, detailed in the headnote, has been preferred. Since the issues involved in both the petitions are interconnected, both the petitions are being disposed of by single order.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that, that on 20.05.2025, the petitioner was arrested by the police with the allegations that he had committed an offence punishable under Sections 21/21-C/27-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS’ only. As per mandate under the law, the challan for the commission of abovementioned offence was supposed to be filed by the Investigating Agency within a period of 180 days, i.e. latest by 16.11.2025. However, before expiry of abovementioned period, i.e. on 13.11.2025, the Investigating Agency, through Public Prosecutor, moved an application and prayed for extension of time meant for presentation of challan. Although the abovementioned application was opposed by the petitioner, yet, by virtue of order dated 14.11.2025, the same was allowed.

4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the benefit of extension of time has been accorded to the Investigating Agency without following the relevant law, and that the learned trial Court at the time of according the abovementioned extension has not followed the mandatory provisions enshrined under the law.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the failure of Investigating Agency to submit the challan within the fixed timeframe, i.e. 180 days from the date of arrest of petitioner, confirms an absolute right to the accused, i.e. the right to seek bail, and that the extension of time has been accorded in the present case on 14.11.2025, which has resulted into denial of abovementioned right to the accused by virtue of order dated 19.11.2025 and therefore, the extension of time for presentation of challan, accorded in the present case, is not the routine business of the Court.

7. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of extension of time for presentation of challan has been accorded to the prosecution not only in a very casual manner, but also in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, which prescribes for the report of Public Prosecutor. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, for want of compliance of Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, the impugned orders are bad in law and deserves to be set-aside.

8. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Kumar Kedia @Sanjay Kedia V/s Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau & Anr.’ 2009(17) SCC 631, and by this Court in the cases of ‘Bharat Bhushan V/s State of Haryana’ 2024(2) Law Herald 960, ‘Ravinder @Bhola V/s State of Haryana