JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral).:- This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.36 dated 27.04.2013 under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sunam, District Sangrur. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2013 and as per prosecution version an alleged recovery of 2800 tablets of Phinotil was effected from him. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 4. Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under its various sub-sections, the maximum period beyond which a person cannot be detained while investigation is under way has been provided and the same varies between 60 to 90 days keeping in view the gravity of offence. If the investigation is not completed within such stipulated period, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he makes an application for such purpose. However, under the Act, the maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been increased to 180 days for several categories of offences under the Act. Under Section 36-A of the Act, the period of detention may go on to a total of one year subject to satisfaction and compliance of the stringent conditions provided therein i.e. (i) upon a report of the Public Prosecutor; (ii) which in turn indicates the progress of the investigation; (iii) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days; and (iv) after notice to the accused. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 156 while dealing with the proviso inserted as clause (bb) in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of TADA which is parimateria with the proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 36-A of the Act had categorically held that even though the proviso does not specifically mandate the issuance of a notice to the accused while seeking extension yet the issuance of a notice has to be read into the provision which would be, both, in the interest of the accused, as also the prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the parties. Such requirement was held to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 6. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it has gone undisputed that since the investigation in the matter had not been completed and the maximum period of 180 days was expiring, an application under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act (in short “the Act”) dated 27.10.2013 seeking extension of time was preferred by the Investigating Officer but no report of the Public Prosecutor was filed. Vide order dated 28.10.2013, the trial Court extended time for filing of the challan till 26.11.2013. It also stands conceded that a second application was moved for extension of time under Section 36-A of the Act on 25.11.2013 by the Additional Public Prosecutor and without issuing notice to the petitioner, second extension to file challan was granted by the trial Court till 13.12.2013. 7. The petitioner admittedly had filed a bail application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court on 27.10.2013 i.e. even prior to the grant of the first tenure of extension granted by the trial Court but the same has not been accepted. 8. In my considered view, there has been non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 36-A of the Act. The provision mandates a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation as also the specific and compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond a period of 180 days. In the light of the admitted position of facts in the present case, the first application seeking extension under Section 36-A of the Act did not even have the requisite report of the Public Prosecutor. Insofar as the second application seeking extension is concerned, no notice was issued to the petitioner. This Court would have no hesitation in observing that the applications submitted seeking extension of time for completion of investigation and the orders passed thereupon by the trial Court have been done in a routine and mechanical fashion. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. Petition is allowed. 10. Petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 11. Disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------