Extension Application & Bail Application Not Disposed Of Together: Madras HC Grants Statutory Bail In NDPS Case
The Madras High Court granted statutory bail in an NDPS case after holding that the Trial Court had not disposed of the extension application and the bail application together.
The Court set aside the order of Extension of Investigation under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) passed by the Special Court after holding that the reasons for further detention were absent. The Special Court had earlier dismissed the statutory bail Petition while allowing the Prosecution’s applications for an extension of time to file final reports.
A Single Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan observed, “Coming to the facts of this case, it is seen that the trial Court had not disposed of the extension application and the bail application together as directed by the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also had not considered the extension application in an expeditious manner. Since, there is a violation of the direction, this Court is of the view that the petitioners would be entitled to the statutory bail in all the cases.”
Advocate A. Rajamohamed appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak represented the Respondent.
The accused in the cases were arrested in March and April 2024. The statutory period for completing the investigation under the NDPS Act is 180 days. Before the expiry of this period, the prosecution filed applications for extension under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. However, these extension applications were not considered expeditiously, and the trial court did not decide them alongside the statutory bail petitions filed by the accused.
The Special Court subsequently dismissed the bail petitions on the ground that the extension applications had been allowed. The accused challenged these orders before the High Court, stating that the delay in considering the extension applications rendered the orders invalid and revived their right to statutory bail.
The High Court referred to the Full Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Subhas Yadav v. State of West Bengal (2023), wherein it was held, “Right of an accused to statutory bail upon expiry of the period of detention prescribed under section 36A(4) of NDPS Act is an inchoate one till he avails of his right by seeking statutory bail either by way of an application or even orally. Hence, he cannot be released automatically on statutory bail on the mere expiry of 180 days even if the prosecutor has failed to submit report seeking extension of detention in terms of the proviso to section 36A(4) of the Act before expiry of the said period.”
The Court noted that the extension applications were decided after a delay of several days and were not considered alongside the statutory bail petitions.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the Trial Courts must follow the guidelines issued by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Subhas Yadav (Supra) and “any failure in not following the procedure prescribed, would amount to violation of the right of the accused and would result in grant of bail.”
“If an extension application is filed and pending, when the statutory period for filing the final report comes to an end, then the trial Courts have to necessarily follow the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated above i.e., to consider the application for extension and the bail application together. The decision in the bail application ofcourse would depend on the decision in the extension application,” the Court explained.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case.
Cause Title: Mohamed Asaruthin v. State of Tamil Nadu
