(1.) By both these bail applications, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 3-3-2006 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Misc. Cases No. 60/2006 and 58/2006 respectively, whereby the trial Court dismissed the bail applications filed by both the petitioners under Section 439 read with Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the impugned orders, as also the record of the trial Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court fell in error in remanding the petitioners to judicial custody after 180 days from their arrest since the police did not complete the investigation within 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioners.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner Shrawan Kumar was arrested on 4-9-2005 and petitioner Deva Ram was arrested on 5-9-2005 and Section 57 of the Code empowers the police officer to detain in custody a person arrested upto 24 hours from the time of arrest and thereafter to produce him before the Court for remand and, therefore, from the first order of remand, 180 days have not been completed when the police filed the Challan. Even otherwise, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, on 2-3-2006, an application was filed by the investigation officer before the trial Court seeking extension of time to complete the investigation and file Challan, which was allowed by the trial Court and, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act" hereinafter), the trial Court extended the period upto 3.3.2006 on the request made by the investigating officer and the Public Prosecutor showing the progress of investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused-petitioners beyond the period of 180 days, and, therefore, the remand/detention order passed by the trial Court is perfectly in accordance with law and the petitioners are not entitled for bail under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code.