BANTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case of recovery of intoxicating injections, capsules and powder. He was arrested on 26.4.2013 and has been in judicial custody w.e.f. 28.4.2013. 180 days required for presentation of challan under the NDPS Act, expired on 24.10.2013. The petitioner opted to file an application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2013 as the challan had not been presented. It is also pertinent to observe here that an application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act, for extension of time to present challan and to authorize detention for a period beyond 180 days was filed well in time prior to the expiry of 180 days i.e., on 23.10.2013. The trial Court opted to allow the application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act and dismiss the application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., on 30.10.2013. The reasons for seeking extension does not appear to be of much relevance as the prosecution agency claims that the original file had been lost in the theft on 21.10.2013. The petitioner has sought concession of bail claiming that indefeasible right accrued to the petitioner on expiry of 180 days on 24.10.2013, cannot be defeated by pendency of an application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act which was not allowed by 24.10.2013 before the expiry of 180 days.

(2.) I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as of the State counsel regarding the right of the petitioner to be released on bail on expiry of 180 days permitted for presentation of challan in the NDPS Act cases where the commercial quantity of contraband is alleged to have been recovered and the right of the prosecution agency to seek extension of time under the statute by moving an application under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act. In a judgment passed by this Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-17260-2014, decided on 29.5.2014, taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, 2009 17 SCC 631, besides the provisions of under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act and Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., it has been held as follows: -

(3.) In another case Kaka Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-22760-2014, decided on 12.8.2014, this Court taking into consideration the judgment in case Union of India through CBI Vs. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav,2014 4 RAJ 265, it was observed as follows: -