187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case

"The accused gets an indefeasible right of bail on account of default by the Investigating Agency in not presenting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Section 193 BNSS) within the stipulated period. Further, before extension of time for presentation of challan is granted by the Court, notice must be issued to the accused." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 21, 2026, held that any extension of time granted to the prosecution to file a chargesheet under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) without prior notice to the accused is illegal and unsustainable in law.

Setting aside a Special Court order that extended the investigation period ex-parte and subsequently dismissed a plea for statutory bail, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that an ex-parte extension vitiates the proceedings, thereby entitling the accused to an indefeasible right of default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petitioner, Gurwinder Singh, was arrested on December 12, 2025, pursuant to an FIR registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Gate Hakima, Amritsar, concerning the alleged recovery of commercial quantities of heroin. The statutory 180-day window for filing the final report under Section 187(3) BNSS was due to expire on June 16, 2026. However, on June 6, 2026, the Special Judge (Duty), Amritsar, allowed an application moved under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act on the very same day, granting the police a 15-day extension without issuing any notice or intimation to the petitioner. When the petitioner filed for default bail on June 16, 2026, the application was dismissed citing the extension order, while the final challan was submitted later on June 19, 2026.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the Special Court could lawfully extend the period of investigation beyond 180 days under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act without serving advance notice on the accused. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the accused acquired an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS when the chargesheet was not presented within 180 days and the extension order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Prior Notice To Accused Is A Mandatory Requirement Under Natural Justice

The High Court observed that while Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act permits the extension of the statutory investigation period from 180 days up to one year, such power cannot be exercised routinely or in secret. The Court emphasized that even though the statutory text does not explicitly mention notice, the issuance of notice to the accused must be read into the provision as an indispensable facet of natural justice and fair play in action.

The bench placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2010), which followed the landmark ratio in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994). The Court reiterated that an extension beyond 180 days requires strict compliance with four cumulative conditions: an independent report of the Public Prosecutor indicating progress, specific compelling reasons for detention, justification for the delay, and issuance of notice to the accused.

Public Prosecutor Cannot Function As A Mere Forwarding Agency

The Court highlighted that the Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory officer under criminal law and not an arm of the investigating agency. The Public Prosecutor is expected to independently apply their mind to the case records before requesting an extension, rather than acting as a mere "post office" or forwarding agency for the investigating officer.

The bench noted that the request of an investigating officer for extension of time is no substitute for the statutory report of the Public Prosecutor. Because the acceptance of such an extension directly curtails the fundamental personal liberty of the accused, courts must enforce strict adherence to statutory safeguards before expanding detention periods.

Default Bail Under Section 187(3) BNSS Is An Absolute Legislative Command

Examining the right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS (pari materia to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the Court reaffirmed that the statutory right to bail upon failure to submit the challan within the prescribed time is absolute. Citing its coordinate bench decision in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana (2022) and the apex court's ruling in Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer, NCB (1990), the bench underscored that courts have no discretion to remand an accused beyond the stipulated maximum period without a lawful, valid extension.

The Court reiterated that when the prescribed timeline lapses without a chargesheet or a valid extension order, an obligation is cast upon the Magistrate or Special Judge to decline further remand and inform the accused of their right to be released on default bail, without examining the underlying merits of the case.

Ex-Parte Extension Rendered Void, Right To Default Bail Accrues

Applying these established principles to the timeline of the case, the bench noted that the petitioner was arrested on December 12, 2025, and the 180-day timeline expired on June 16, 2026. The prosecution's extension application dated June 6, 2026, was allowed on the same day without serving any notice on the petitioner. Consequently, the extension order dated June 6, 2026, being passed in violation of mandatory procedural requirements, was declared unsustainable and set aside.

Since the petitioner applied for default bail on June 16, 2026, and the challan was submitted only on June 19, 2026, the Court held that an indefeasible statutory right to default bail had fully accrued in favour of the petitioner on the date of his application.

Setting aside the impugned orders dated June 6, 2026 and June 16, 2026, the High Court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on default bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate. To balance societal interests, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of ₹50,000 and report to the local police station on the first Monday of every month.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2026