JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner-A4 on bail in Crime No.110 of 2016 of Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(iii) of N.D.P.S. Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. while the Inspector of Police, Korukonda Circle was in the office, he received credible information about the transportation of ganja through Special Branch, Dy. S.P. Rajamahendravaram Urban Police District and he informed the same to Dy. S.P. North Zone, Korukonda, obtained permission to conduct raid. He sent a requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate, Korukonda to depute two V.R.Os. as mediators. He secured in-chare S.I., Head Constable and other police team, they travelled to the outskirts of Dosakayalapalli village of Korukonda Mandal. They proceeded to coconut, palm oil and lemon garden of one Bhanuraju master and parked their vehicles at the outskirts and entered into the garden at 4.00 p.m. and then noticed one car bearing No.AP-35-D-3337 and one motorcycle and found four persons in possession of four packets in their hands to load in the car dicky parked in the middle of the garden and when the four persons tried to abscond, they were apprehended, on interrogation they disclosed their identity and also confessed that they are loading ganja in the dicky and apart from ganja in their hands, some ganja is already loaded in the dicky, thereupon they seized 190 kgs. of ganja from their possession and lifted the samples for the purpose of chemical analysis by following the due procedure and on the strength of the same, the police registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2016 of Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District for the offences publishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b) (iii) of N.D.P.S. Act and issued F.I.R. on 04.07.2016. 3. 3. The present petition is filed mainly on the ground that after apprehension of the accused and remanded to the judicial custody on 05.07.2016, the charge sheet was not filed within 180 days and thereby the accused is entitled to claim a statutory bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. But, strangely the court itself issued a memo to the investigating officer and they filed a memo on 29.12.2016 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram for extention of one week time for compliance of objection and for filing charge sheet in view of the difficulty i.e. engaging in escort duty of Chief Minister on 29.12.2016 at Mori village of Razola Taluk and the I Additional District and Sessions Judge by order dated 29.12.2016 extended the remand till 05.01.2017. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed a petition before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 02.01.2017 to release him on statutory bail as the respondent failed to file the charge sheet within 180 days. But, strangely the officer returned the petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in view of the memo filed by the prosecution on 29.12.2016 in which remand is extended till 05.01.2017 and later represented the same but again returned with an objection and passed an order on 02.01.2017 which is as follows: “Order is made on the docket, extended the time on memo. Time is extended as per the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, returned.” 5. In pursuance of the order dated 02.01.2017 the present petition is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on various grounds, more particularly, entitlement of the petitioner to claim statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and in the absence of any reasons, the Court cannot extend time mechanically and drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedi v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another (1) 2010 (2) ALT (Crl.) 513 (SC) = 2010 (1) ALD Criminal 907 and Kamal Narayan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2) 2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) 15 (NRC) = 2011 Crl.L.J.612. The Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia 1st cited supra in para 9 of the judgment laid down certain requirements for extention of time and held as follows: “9. The Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia 1st cited supra in para 9 of the judgment laid down certain requirements for extention of time and held as follows: “9. The maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167(2) of the Code has been increased to 180 days for several categories of offences under the Act but the proviso authorizes yet further period of detention which may in total go upto one year, provided the stringent conditions provided therein are satisfied and are complied with. The conditions provided are: (1) a report of the public prosecutor, (2) which indicates the progress of the investigation; and (3) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days, and (4) after notice to the accused.” 6. But, a memo is filed making a bald allegations that the officer concerned is engaged in escort/bundobust duty in connection with Chief Minister programme in Mori village of Razole taluk and the report of the Public Prosecutor is not annexed to it and no details of progress of the investigation are disclosed, more particularly, the compelling reasons for seeking detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. But passing such an order by the Additional District and Sessions Judge extending time is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia case 1st cited supra and later in Kamal Narayan case 2nd cited supra reiteraling the principles laid down and adverting to the facts of the case concluded that the Public Prosecutor did not submit any report as per Clause (1) of Kedia’s case first cited supra and the Public Prosecutor did not sought any extention of time for completion of investigation and submission of the charge sheet and no notice was served on the accused for such extention of remand and the accused who was in jail was not produced before the Court. But, the I Additional District and Sessions Judge totally in utter disregard of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in both the judgments passed such an order. But, return of the bail application on the sole ground that a memo was filed and time was extended without complying the guidelines issued by the Apex Court is not sufficient cause to return the application filed under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. 7. But, return of the bail application on the sole ground that a memo was filed and time was extended without complying the guidelines issued by the Apex Court is not sufficient cause to return the application filed under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. 7. As admitted by the respondents, the entire investigation is completed right now but filed charge sheet on 06.01.2017 even after expiry of time extended by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to claim statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. though not under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioner filed the application before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge on 02.01.2017 under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. but the I Additional District and Sessions Judge did not consider the bail application in right perspective and in utter disregard of the guidelines of the Apex Court returned the petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. without any sufficient cause. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail but subject to imposing certain conditions. 8. Though, the quantity involved in the offence is 190 kgs. Which is commercial quantity under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will apply for grant of regular bail but not under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. prima facie. In any view of the matter, Section 37 of N.D.P.S, Act is not an absolute bar to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(iii) of N.D.P.S. Act, but, the requirement is to give notice to the Public Prosecutor for hearing and to record satisfaction that the petitioner did commit no prima facie offence and that there is no possibility of committing the similar offence while on bail which are statutory requirement as per the settled law. 9. But, in the present case, the petitioner is entitled to claim bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and applicability of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is doubtful. In any view of the matter, there is no possibility of interfering with the further investigation by the petitioner since the charge sheet is already filed on 05.01.2017 and no material placed on record to substantiate that there is a possibility of commission of similar offence while on bail. Hence, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 10. Hence, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed enlarging the petitioner-A-4 on bail in Crime No.110 of 2016 of Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(iii) of N.D.P.S. Act on his executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, West Godavari District.