The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that an extension of investigation beyond the statutory 180-day period under the NDPS Act is void unless the accused is given notice and an opportunity to be heard, thereby preserving the indefeasible right to default bail.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Akash, Vishal and another accused - challenged the validity of a three-month extension granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, to complete the investigation in FIR No. 442 dated 22 December 2025 under Sections 22-C, 22-B and 29 of the NDPS Act. The extension was sought to allow further forensic analysis of seized narcotic injections.
Key Facts
- 22 December 2025: FIR registered at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.
- 24 December 2025: Akash arrested.
- 25 December 2025: Vishal arrested based on Akash’s disclosure.
- 26 December 2025: Akash sent to judicial custody; Vishal produced before Special Court, granted one-day police remand.
- 27 December 2025: Vishal remanded to judicial custody.
- 26 May 2026: Notice of application for extension of investigation was directed only to accused Sanjay and Krishan (different remand proceedings).
- 29 May 2026: Additional Sessions Judge ordered a further three-month extension of the investigation period.
- 25 June 2026: Petitioners filed applications for default bail before the charge-sheet was presented.
- 24 July 2026: Charge-sheet prepared.
- 3 August 2026: Charge-sheet submitted before the trial Court.
- 1 July 2026: Common impugned order dismissed the petitioners’ default bail applications.
- 31 August 2026: High Court delivered the present judgment.
Procedural History
- 22 December 2025: FIR lodged.
- 24 December 2025: Akash arrested.
- 25 December 2025: Vishal arrested.
- 26 December 2025: Judicial custody of Akash; Vishal produced before Special Court.
- 27 December 2025: Vishal remanded to judicial custody.
- 29 May 2026: Extension of investigation period (three months) ordered.
- 1 July 2026: Applications for default bail dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge.
- 25 June 2026: Petitioners filed revision petitions seeking default bail.
- 24 July 2026: Charge-sheet prepared.
- 3 August 2026: Charge-sheet filed.
- 31 August 2026: High Court allowed revision petitions and set aside the extension and dismissal orders.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Assert that the extension order violated the mandatory safeguards of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act because they were neither served notice nor given an opportunity to be heard. They rely on Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2023) and contend that their right to default bail became indefeasible upon expiry of the 180-day period.
- State: Argues that the extension was a composite application covering all accused under the same FIR and that the investigation had uncovered sufficient evidence against all four accused. It contends that the extension should not be confined to particular accused and that the charge-sheet’s later filing validates the extension.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the extension order dated 29 May 2026, setting aside of the order dismissing their default bail applications dated 1 July 2026, and a direction that they be released on personal and surety bonds.
The Legal Issue
Whether the three-month extension of investigation granted on 29 May 2026 complies with the mandatory requirements of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, specifically the obligation to inform the accused and secure his presence when considering the extension, so as to validly extend detention beyond 180 days and defeat the petitioners’ right to default bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The extension order was passed without serving notice to the petitioners or their counsel, breaching the safeguard mandated by Section 36-A(4).
- Supreme Court precedent in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat requires physical or video-link presence of the accused before any extension is granted.
- The right to default bail becomes indefeasible once the statutory period lapses and the accused has applied for bail, irrespective of subsequent filing of the charge-sheet.
For the Respondent
- The application for extension was a composite filing covering the entire FIR and therefore not limited to any single accused.
- The investigation had progressed sufficiently to justify additional time, and the charge-sheet prepared on 24 July 2026 demonstrated the necessity of the extension.
- The extension order did not expressly restrict its benefit, and the prosecution’s evidence against all four accused was substantial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by interpreting Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, which stipulates that before the period of detention can be extended beyond 180 days, the accused must be informed of the application and given an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that this safeguard is not a mere formality but a substantive right, echoing the Supreme Court’s observation in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya that the accused must be present either physically or through video linkage.
"The requirement of informing the accused and securing his presence when the prayer for extension of the period of investigation is considered is not an empty formal-ity. The accused has a right to oppose the prayer for extension."
The Court noted that the notice dated 26 May 2026 was directed only to the accused in REMP No. 9 (Sanjay and Krishan) and that no notice was issued to the petitioners, who were pending in separate remand proceedings (REMP No. 10). Consequently, the petitioners were neither present nor represented when the extension was considered on 29 May 2026. This omission violated the mandatory safeguard and rendered the extension order void.
Further, the Court held that the indefeasibility of default bail, as articulated in Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan (2023), cannot be overridden by a later extension order that fails to comply with statutory safeguards. The petitioners had filed applications for default bail on 25 June 2026, before the charge-sheet was prepared on 24 July 2026. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet does not retrospectively validate the defective extension.
The Court also rejected the State’s argument that the extension was a composite application. Even if the application covered all accused, the procedural requirement of notice and hearing applies individually to each accused whose period of detention is to be extended. The failure to comply with this requirement cannot be cured by the substantive merits of the investigation.
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the extension order dated 29 May 2026 cannot be relied upon to defeat the petitioners’ right to default bail. Accordingly, the order dismissing their bail applications dated 1 July 2026 was also set aside.
The Verdict
The High Court set aside the extension order dated 29 May 2026 and the impugned order dismissing the petitioners’ default bail applications dated 1 July 2026. It held that the petitioners are entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS and ordered their release on personal and surety bonds, subject to the condition that they are not required in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Default Bail Remains Indefeasible
- Once the statutory 180-day period lapses and the accused applies for default bail, the right cannot be defeated by a later extension that fails to meet Section 36-A(4) safeguards.
- Courts will treat any subsequent charge-sheet filing as irrelevant to the already accrued bail right.
Mandatory Notice and Hearing for Extension
- Prosecutors must serve notice on each accused and ensure their presence (physical or video) before seeking an extension of investigation.
- Failure to comply will render the extension order void, irrespective of the investigation’s progress.
Investigative Extensions Must Comply With Section 36-A(4)
- Composite applications do not exempt individual accused from the statutory safeguards.
- Courts will scrutinise the procedural compliance of extension orders before allowing detention beyond 180 days.
