RAJENDRA SINGH MEHTA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures


21.
BA]
SL.
No.
Date

2026:UHC:4090
BA1st No.19 of 2026

“Rajendra Singh Mehta Vs. State of Uttarakhand”
Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.



Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the
Applicant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA for the
State.
3. Present bail application has been moved
on behalf of the applicant, Rajendra Singh
Mehta, who is in judicial custody in connection
with FIR No. 0204 of 2025, registered at Police
Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. The facts, in brief, are that on 01.05.2025,
the applicant was allegedly intercepted by the
police near Jafarpur Cut, Kashipur Highway,
within the limits of Police Station Rudrapur. As
per the State’s case, on search of the scooter
allegedly being used by the applicant, 4.050 kg
of charas was recovered from the trunk of the
scooter. The applicant was arrested and
remanded to custody on 02.05.2025. The bail
application moved by the applicant before the
learned Special Judge came to be rejected vide
order dated 12.11.2025. The charge-sheet was
thereafter filed on 02.12.2025.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant is entitled to be released on
default bail, as the statutory period of 180 days
prescribed under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS
Act had expired before filing of the charge-
sheet. It is submitted that on 12.11.2025, when

the bail application was considered by the
learned court below, the charge-sheet had not
been filed and a specific submission to that
effect was raised before the learned court below.
7. Learned counsel further submits that no
valid order extending the period of investigation
in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act
has been shown. It is submitted that mere
extension of remand cannot be treated as
extension of time for completion of
investigation, unless the statutory requirement of
a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating
progress of investigation and specific reasons
for continued detention is complied with.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel has
opposed the bail application and submits that the
recovery is of commercial quantity and that the
charge-sheet has now been filed. It is further
submitted that in view of the rigour of Section
37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled
to be enlarged on bail.
9. This Court finds that the applicant has
remained in custody since 02.05.2025. The
statutory period of 180 days stood completed
before the charge-sheet was filed. The order
dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned court
below records the submission advanced on
behalf of the applicant that the charge-sheet had
not been submitted within the prescribed period,
whereas the charge-sheet came to be filed only
thereafter on 02.12.2025.
10. The right to default bail stands on a
footing distinct from regular bail on merits. In
M. Ravindran v Intelligence Officer, Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36-A(4)
of the NDPS Act, held that once an accused files

an application for bail after expiry of 180 days,
he is deemed to have availed of his right to be
released on default bail, and the Court must
release him on bail without unnecessary delay.
11. In the present case, no valid order
extending the period of investigation in terms of
Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act has been
placed before this Court. The learned court
below, despite noticing the submission that the
charge-sheet had not been filed within the
prescribed period, proceeded to reject the bail
application on merits. Once the statutory period
had expired and the charge-sheet had not been
filed, the learned court below ought to have
considered the applicant’s claim for default bail
in its correct legal perspective.
12. The objection regarding commercial
quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
be relevant while considering bail on merits.
However, in a case where default bail is claimed
on account of non-filing of the charge-sheet
within the prescribed statutory period, the Court
is concerned with the statutory default and not
with the merits of recovery.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
released on default bail.
14. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed. Let the Applicant – Rajendra Singh
Mehta, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond with two reliable sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned court. The Applicant shall cooperate
with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse
the liberty granted to him.


(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:15.05.2026
NR/