Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case"

"Depriving an Accused of Default Bail Without Hearing is a Gross Illegality Violating Article 21", In a strongly-worded judgment delivered on 5 February 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the absence of the accused at the time of granting an extension for filing the challan under the NDPS Act amounts to a gross illegality and a serious violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court accordingly quashed the extension order and granted default bail to the petitioners.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal observed: “Since extension of time directly affects the accused’s right to default bail, an order passed in his absence is a serious violation of his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.” [Para 7]

Extension Granted Without Notice to Accused — Violative of Fundamental Right to Liberty

The petitioners, Paras Thakur and another, were arrested on 7 May 2025 under Sections 22, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with FIR No. 29 at PS Special Operation Cell, Amritsar. The statutory 180-day period for filing the challan was to expire on 4 November 2025.

However, the prosecution sought extension on 30 October 2025, which was granted by the trial court on 31 October 2025—without issuing notice to or producing the accused before the court. The trial court later dismissed the petitioners' application for default bail, relying on the extended timeline.

The High Court found this procedure fundamentally flawed:

“A bare reading of the order granting extension shows that there is no reference whatsoever to the presence or any submission or objection raised by the petitioners... Such omission is in clear breach of the settled legal requirement and thus, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed.” [Para 8]

Default Bail: A Constitutional Protection, Not a Mere Procedural Right

The Court reiterated the constitutional nature of default bail, observing that it is not merely a statutory entitlement but an intrinsic component of personal liberty under Article 21. Relying on authoritative precedents, the Court emphasized:

“Default bail is an indefeasible right that accrues to the accused on the expiry of the statutory period, if no valid extension has been granted. The procedure contemplated by Article 21... must be fair, just, and reasonable.” [Paras 5-7]

Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI and Jigar v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that:

“Failure to procure the presence of the accused—either physically or virtually—and failure to inform him that the extension application is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.” [Para 6]

Gravity of NDPS Offence Cannot Override Due Process

The State had argued that the seriousness of the NDPS offence warranted a more cautious approach. However, the Court firmly held that constitutional safeguards cannot be sacrificed at the altar of gravity of offence:

“Compliance with mandatory procedural requirements cannot be waived merely because the offence is serious. The seriousness of the charge cannot override fundamental rights.” [Para 4]

Order Quashed, Petitioners Granted Default Bail

The Court held that since the extension of time was granted without ensuring the presence of the accused, the order stood vitiated. Consequently, the petitioners were found entitled to default bail.

“The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 is quashed qua the petitioners and they are directed to be released on default bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.” [Para 9]

The Court clarified that this ruling shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

Judicial Reminder that Liberty Cannot Be Denied in Violation of Procedure

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that procedural safeguards are not technical formalities, but constitutional shields against arbitrary incarceration. The Court's decision reinforces that non-compliance with the basic requirement of hearing the accused before extending investigation timelines directly infringes their fundamental rights under Article 21, and cannot be tolerated even in cases involving serious charges like those under the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: 05 February 2026