ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36 -A (c ) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.147 dated 16.7.2014 under Section 20, 21, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act registered at Police Station 'C Division' Amritsar City District Amritsar.

(2.) IN this case, petitioners were arrested on 16.7.2014 and period of 180 days was completed on 12.1.2015. The application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.1.2015 by petitioners No.1 and 2 and petitioner No.3 moved such application on 13.1.2015. The State moved an application for extension of time on 20.1.2015 i.e. after the expiry of period of 180 days. The application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 20.1.2015 on the ground that the application for extension of time has been allowed and period of 30 days more over and above 180 days has been granted in favour of prosecution. Since the application for extension of time has been allowed, therefore, the petitioners have no right under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act and as such it was ordered that the application in question is not maintainable. Following questions arise for consideration of the Court: -

(3.) IN Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 3 RCR(Cri) 156, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with provision of 20 (4) of TADA, which is quite analogous to Section 36 (A) 4 of N.D.S.P. Act, observed that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of 180 days, the designated Court shall extend the period up to one year on the report of public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons are to be quoted for detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. prescribes outer limits within which the investigation must be completed. Section 167 Cr.P.C.read with Section 20 (4) of TADA is not a provision for grant of bail but certainly provides maximum period during which the accused may be kept in custody and detention to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file challan. The proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 20 (4) (b) of TADA creates an indefeasible right in favour of the accused on account of default by the prosecution agency in completing the investigation within the prescribed or extended time. As a consequence of the amendment, an accused after the expiry of 180 days from the date of his arrest becomes entitled to bail irrespective of nature of offence with which he is charged with, where the prosecution fails to put up challan against him on completion of the investigation.