Akash vs State Of Haryana

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

244 (3 cases)


1. CRR-1691-2026 (O&M)

Akash ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

2. CRR-1694-2026 (O&M)

Vishal ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

3. CRR-1813-2026 (O&M)

Vishal and another ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

Date of decision : 31.08.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Advocate,
Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Kamal Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Abhimanu, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of abovementioned three petitions
as they are similar in nature and seek identical relief.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -2-

2. The first two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners
assailing the common order dated 01.07.2026, passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal in case arising out FIR No.442 dated
22.12.2025, registered under Sections 22-C, 22-B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police
Station Hodal, District Palwal, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners
under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking their release on default bail in
case arising out of FIR No.442 dated 22.12.2025, registered under Sections 22-C,
22-B and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, were dismissed.
The third petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.05.2026, whereby
the Court concerned had granted extension of three months to the prosecution for
completing the investigation.
3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the
present petitions are that on 22.12.2025, on the basis of secret information
received by the police, a raid was conducted on Chameli Road, Bhulwana, where
Sanjay and Krishan Kumar were allegedly found in possession of narcotic and
prohibited injections. As per the prosecution case, 30 packets containing 300
Pentazocine injections along with 20 injections of Binorphine were recovered
from their possession. During investigation, the name of petitioner Akash
surfaced and he was arrested on 24.12.2025. During his police remand, he
disclosed the source from where the narcotic substance had been procured and, on
the identification made by him, petitioner-Vishal was arrested on 25.12.2025.
4. As further revealed from the record, petitioner-Akash was sent to
judicial custody on 26.12.2025, whereas petitioner-Vishal was produced before
the learned Special Court on 26.12.2025, was granted one day police remand and
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -3-

was thereafter remanded to judicial custody on 27.12.2025. Thus, the period of
180 days, in the case of Akash, expired on 22.06.2026 and in the case of Vishal,
expired on 23.06.2026. The challan had not been presented till the expiry of the
said statutory period.
5. In the meantime, the prosecution had moved an application seeking
extension of time for completion of investigation and presentation of the challan.
The said application was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Palwal and vide order dated 29.05.2026, a further period of three months was
granted for completion of investigation. The reasons mentioned in the application
included collection of data from the mobile phones through the DITAC
laboratory, obtaining call detail records along with the requisite certificate, and
collection of records from the concerned manufacturer of the recovered injections
to establish the chain of supply. By alleging that the order dated 29.05.2026 was
not sustainable and an indefeasible right had accrued in favour of the petitioners
for grant of default bail, they moved applications for grant of default bail to them
but the same had been dismissed vide common impugned order dated 01.07.2026.
Hence, the present petitions.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid
extension order dated 29.05.2026 is not sustainable qua the petitioners as neither
of them was given notice of the application seeking extension nor were they or
their counsel heard at the time when the said application was considered. Learned
counsel has pointed out that separate remand proceedings were being maintained
for Sanjay and Krishan on the one hand and Vishal and Akash on the other. It is
further submitted that the zimni order dated 26.05.2026 directed issuance of
notice of the extension application to the accused concerned in the proceedings
then before the Court, but the petitioners, whose remand proceedings were
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -4-

separately pending in REMP No.10 of 2026, were neither noticed nor heard. It is
accordingly argued that the extension order cannot be relied upon to defeat the
indefeasible right of the petitioners to default bail. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has further argued that on 29.05.2026, only the counsel appearing for
accused Krishan and Sanjay addressed arguments on the application seeking
extension, whereas neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present or heard.
It is submitted that the right of the petitioners to default bail accrued upon expiry
of the statutory period of 180 days and the same could not have been defeated by
an extension order passed without complying with the mandatory safeguards
prescribed by law. Hence, it is urged that the petitions deserve to be accepted and
the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. To fortify his arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra
Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484.
7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present
petitions. It has been argued that the application seeking extension of time was a
composite application in the case arising out of FIR No.442 and was not confined
only to accused Sanjay and Krishan. It is submitted that the progress of
investigation qua the entire case was specifically mentioned in the report and the
operative portion of the order dated 29.05.2026 granted three months' time to
conclude the investigation without restricting the benefit of the order to any
particular accused. It is further submitted that during investigation, sufficient
evidence was found against all the four accused, namely Sanjay, Krishan, Akash
and Vishal, and the charge-sheet was prepared on 24.07.2026 and submitted
before the learned trial Court on 03.08.2026. It has, thus, urged that the present
petitions are liable to be dismissed.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -5-

8. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties.
9. The short question which arises for consideration in the present
petitions is whether the extension of three months granted by the learned trial
Court vide order dated 29.05.2026 satisfies the mandatory requirements of
Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act so as to validly extend the period of detention
of the petitioners beyond 180 days and thereby defeat their right to default bail.
There is no dispute that the alleged recovery falls within the commercial quantity
and, consequently, the statutory period of 180 days contemplated under Section
36-A(4) of the NDPS Act was available to the prosecution. It is also not in
dispute that the challan had not been presented till the expiry of the respective
periods of 180 days in the case of the petitioners and that they had moved their
applications seeking default bail on 25.06.2026, i.e. before presentation of the
challan.
10. The proviso to Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act incorporates
safeguards before the period of detention can be extended beyond 180 days. The
requirement of informing the accused and securing his presence when the prayer
for extension of the period of investigation is considered is not an empty
formality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra
Adatiya’s case (supra) has held that when the Court considers a prayer for
extension of time for completing investigation, the presence of the accused has to
be procured either physically or through electronic video linkage. The rationale
behind such requirement is that the accused has a right to oppose the prayer for
extension. The aforesaid principle assumes significance in the facts of the present
case. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners Vishal and Akash were
being proceeded against in separate remand proceedings bearing REMP No.10 of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -6-

2026, whereas REMP No.9 of 2026 pertained to accused Sanjay and Krishan. The
record further shows that on 26.05.2026 notice of the application seeking
extension of time was directed to be issued to the accused concerned in REMP
No.9 of 2026. However, no notice was issued to the petitioners or their counsel in
their separate remand proceedings. Consequently, when the application for
extension was considered on 29.05.2026, the petitioners were neither present
before the learned Court nor represented through counsel for the purpose of
opposing the prayer for extension.
11. It is, therefore, evident from the record itself that the petitioners were
deprived of an opportunity to contest the prayer of the prosecution for extension
of the period of investigation. The fact that the application was styled as a
composite application in the case arising out of the same FIR or that the operative
portion of the order did not restrict the extension to any particular accused cannot
dispense with the mandatory requirement of affording the concerned accused an
opportunity to be heard before an order having the effect of extending his period
of incarceration beyond the statutory period is passed. The fact that the report of
the learned Public Prosecutor referred to the progress of investigation in the case
as a whole may be relevant for consideration of the merits of the prayer for
extension, but it cannot cure the foundational defect of absence of notice and
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order dated 29.05.2026 has
independently been challenged by the petitioners in the third petition mentioned
above. Once the record demonstrates that the said order was passed without
complying with the mandatory safeguard of informing and hearing the
petitioners, the same cannot be relied upon qua the petitioners for the purpose of
defeating their indefeasible right to default bail. The petitioners cannot be
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -7-

deprived of their statutory right merely because an order affecting such right was
passed in proceedings in which they were neither noticed nor heard.
12. It is equally significant that the petitioners had moved their
applications seeking default bail on 25.06.2026, whereas the charge-sheet was
prepared only on 24.07.2026 and submitted before the learned trial Court on
03.08.2026. Thus, the right claimed by the petitioners had already been availed by
them by filing the applications for default bail before the charge-sheet came to be
presented. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet, therefore, cannot
retrospectively validate the extension order dated 29.05.2026 or extinguish the
right to default bail which had already accrued and been availed of by the
petitioners.
13. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan and
another, 2023(2) RCR (Criminal) 474 , is also relevant in this context, wherein
the right to default bail has been recognized as an indefeasible right once the
statutory conditions stand fulfilled and the accused has availed of the same before
filing of the charge-sheet/final report. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet
cannot frustrate such right. The seriousness of the allegations or the fact that the
alleged offence involves commercial quantity may be relevant for consideration
of regular bail on merits but cannot override the statutory right to default bail
once the conditions governing such right stand satisfied.
14. In the present case, therefore, the extension granted vide order dated
29.05.2026 cannot be sustained qua the petitioners, as the mandatory safeguard of
notice and opportunity of hearing was not complied with before extending the
period of investigation in a manner which had the effect of defeating their
statutory right to default bail. Once the said extension cannot operate against the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-1691-2026 (O&M) and two connected cases -8-

petitioners, they had acquired an indefeasible right to default bail upon expiry of
the statutory period of 180 days. The subsequent order dated 01.07.2026 rejecting
their applications merely on the ground that three months' extension had already
been granted, therefore, cannot be sustained.
15. In view of the discussion made above, the present revision petitions
are allowed. The order dated 29.05.2026 is set aside qua the petitioners. As a
consequence, the common impugned order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Court
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the applications filed by the
petitioners seeking default bail were dismissed, is also set aside. The petitioners
are held entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS and are ordered
to be released from custody, subject to their furnishing personal and surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the
petitioners not being required in any other case.
16. It is clarified that nothing contained herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the evidence
collected during investigation. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet shall
also be dealt with by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.
17. Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
cases.


31.08.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

Whether reportable Yes
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.01 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document