MOHAMMED ZOHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2023, dtd. 6/3/2023 by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, in and by which, the learned Principal Special Judge has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.872 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sec. 8(c), r/w. 22(C) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 29/8/2022 and remanded to judicial custody. After the expiry of statutory period of 180 days, the respondent police, has not filed a final report. Hence, the petitioner filed statutory bail application before the trial court on 2/3/2023. The respondent Police also filed an application under Sec. 36A(4) of the NDPS Act Crl.M.P.No.1161 of 2023 on 20/2/2023 for extension of statutory period for investigation. The trial court, by passing the impugned order dtd. 6/3/2023, dismissed the statutory bail petition and allowed the extension application filed by the respondent Police. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the learned Principal Special Judge, while deciding the application for extension of statutory period of investigation on 6/3/2023, the accused was not heard before the Court either physically or virtually. In the absence of the accused, mere allowing the extension petition is a violation of principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1290 in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vrs. State of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. Thus, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has objected for grant of bail and contended that on the date the accused was represented by the counsel. Therefore the presence of the accused either physically or virtually is not warranted. Therefore there is no illegality in the order dtd. 6/3/2023. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for statutory bail and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision petition.