Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today set aside orders granting extensions for completing the investigation in a narcotics case involving Bharat Bhushan, citing non-compliance with legal provisions. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul underscored, “Indefeasible right to bail arises when investigation exceeds statutory period,” recognizing the petitioner’s entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The court addressed the issue of default bail, with the petitioner challenging orders that denied bail and allowed extensions for investigation beyond the stipulated period in a narcotics case under the NDPS Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Bharat Bhushan was arrested on March 7, 2023, in connection with FIR No.168. He applied for default bail after the 180-day investigation period lapsed, which was dismissed citing granted extensions. Two extensions were challenged – a 30-day extension granted on August 31, 2023, and a second 180-day extension on September 27, 2023. The key legal issue was whether these extensions complied with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

Violation of Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act: The court noted the first extension lacked a Public Prosecutor’s report, essential under Section 36A(4). The second extension led to detention exceeding 365 days, contrary to the legal cap.

Supreme Court Precedents: The judgment cited Supreme Court cases, including Hitendra Vishnu Thakur’s case, emphasizing the necessity of a Public Prosecutor’s report for granting extensions and the independent application of the prosecutor’s mind.

Infringement of Legal Rights: The court observed that detaining the petitioner for 390 days violated his legal rights, as the total detention period exceeded the maximum allowable duration.

The High Court set aside both extension orders. Bharat Bhushan was granted default bail due to the incomplete investigation, affirming his legal right under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: April 1^st, 2024