Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 123 (RAJ)

Sukhanath S/o Dhannanath v. State of Rajasthan

2026-02-03

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2026
ORDER : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10016/2025 1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0020/2025 registered at Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 05.02.2025, the SHO of Police Station Kotdi, Bhilwara, acting upon secret information regarding illegal transportation of contraband (opium), conducted a nakabandi near Government School, Gogas. During the nakabandi, a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. RJ51-CA-4247 was intercepted. Upon following the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, a search of the said vehicle was conducted, and contraband (opium) weighing 6.36 kilograms was recovered from the trunk. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot and taken into custody. 3. The petitioner has remained in police custody since his arrest i.e 05.02.2025. The Special Public Prosecutor, prior to the expiry of the statutory period of 180 days from the date of arrest, filed an application on 31.07.2025 before the competent criminal court seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The learned trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 31.07.2025 and extended the period for filing the charge-sheet up to 04.08.2025. 4. The petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) BNSS) before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara, on 04.08.2025 at 11:00 AM, contending that the investigation was not completed within time and that the statutory period of filing of result of investigation had already expired on 01.08.2025 whereas, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court on 04.08.2025 at 12:20 PM. The learned trial court, by order dated 05.08.2025, rejected the petitioner’s bail application, holding that the extension granted by the court under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was valid and operative and that no indefeasible right to default bail had accrued to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 and, as per the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the investigating agency was required to file the charge-sheet within a period of 180 days, which admittedly expired on 01.08.2025. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that though an application dated 31.07.2025 seeking extension of time for submission of result of investigation was filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, however, the said application was not accompanied by any report indicating the progress of investigation, as mandatorily required under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel fervently submitted that mere filing of an application seeking extension, without a detailed report disclosing progress of investigation and reasons justifying detention of the accused beyond the statutory period, is not proper compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. 7. It was further contended that the learned trial court mechanically allowed the said application on the same day, without recording its satisfaction regarding the progress of investigation or the necessity of further detention of the petitioner. Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the extension granted is illegal and non est, and the petitioner having acquired an indefeasible right was required to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) BNSS) immediately upon expiry of the statutory period. 8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; he does not have any criminal antecedents; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. 9. Per Contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not in dispute that the allegations levelled against the petitioner involves transportation of contraband greater than commercial quantity and that the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act govern the period of investigation in such cases. 9. Per Contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not in dispute that the allegations levelled against the petitioner involves transportation of contraband greater than commercial quantity and that the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act govern the period of investigation in such cases. The statutory period for completion of investigation in cases pertaining to offences under the NDPS Act is 180 days, however, prior to the expiry of the said period, the application dated 31.07.2025 seeking extension of time to complete the investigation and file the result of investigation was moved by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, which came to be allowed by the learned Special Judge on the same day. Consequent thereto, the statutory period for filing of the result of investigation stood lawfully extended and the result of investigation was thereafter filed on 04.08.2025 itself. Thus, the petitioner’s claim of indefeasible right to default bail is without merit and liable to be rejected. 10. It was further submitted that even otherwise also, the recovery of 6.36 kilograms of contraband (opium) which clearly falls within the category of commercial quantity, and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 12. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that it is evident that the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 in connection with recovery of contraband of commercial quantity. While the statutory period for completion of investigation is 180 days, the learned Special Judge, prior to the expiry of such period, allowed an application filed by the Public Prosecutor on 31.07.2025 for extension of time to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet. Consequent thereto, the time for filing of the charge-sheet stood extended and the charge-sheet was thereafter filed on 04.08.2025. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, once an order extending time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is passed by a competent court before expiry of the statutory period, the computation of the period for the purpose of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. stands lawfully enlarged. In such circumstances, the indefeasible right to default bail does not arise at all. 14. In such circumstances, the indefeasible right to default bail does not arise at all. 14. This position has been consistently recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In State of M.P. v. Rustam , (1995) 3 SCC 221 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Where the court has granted extension of time for completion of investigation before the expiry of the prescribed period, the accused cannot claim any right under Section 167(2) CrPC.” 15. Similarly, in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, DRI , (2021) 2 SCC 485 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “Once the statutory period for investigation expires, the accused gains an indefeasible right to default bail, which cannot be defeated by the prosecution by filing a chargesheet subsequently. However, where the competent court has granted an extension of time for completion of investigation in accordance with law, the right to default bail does not arise at all.” 16. At this stage, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that since the extension order remained unchallenged, this Court refrains itself from judging the veracity thereof at this stage. 17. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of consideration in an application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is limited to examining whether, on the date of filing of such application, the accused was in custody beyond the permissible statutory period without a valid extension. So long as an order extending time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act remains operative, the right to default bail does not crystallize. Any challenge to the legality or correctness of the extension order must be raised in appropriate proceedings before the learned court below and cannot be considered at the stage of default bail. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal position in Rustam and M. Ravindran , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 19. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is dismissed. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Interim Bail Application No. 15388/2025 1. The interim bail application under Section 483 BNSS Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0020/2025 registered at Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Interim Bail Application No. 15388/2025 1. The interim bail application under Section 483 BNSS Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0020/2025 registered at Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner seeks interim bail on the ground that his wife is suffering from severe abdominal pain due to uterine infection and has been advised to undergo hysterectomy, therefore, the petitioner may be released on interim bail for a period of 15 days since there is no one else to take care of his ailing wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record necessary documents pertaining to the petitioner’s wife’s ailment. 3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for interim bail and submitted that there are other family members of the petitioner available to look after his ailing wife, therefore, the presence of the petitioner is not essential for her treatment. He also submitted that contraband (opium) greater than commercial quantity has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the possibility of his fleeing away from justice, he does not deserve to be enlarged on interim bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced at Bar and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that grant of interim bail to an accused in an NDPS case where contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered from his conscious possession would not only be contrary to the spirit and object of the NDPS Act but would also convey a wrong message to society that after being involved in offences under the NDPS Act, an accused can seek release on interim bail on grounds of ailment of his family member or some extraordinary family exigency. 6. 6. Keeping in view the fact that there is no emergency which requires physical presence of the petitioner himself at the time of treatment of his ailing wife since other family members of the petitioner are present to care of his ailing wife so also the fact that the petitioner is facing criminal trial for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the present interim bail application is dismissed.