Accused is entitled to default bail if charge-sheet is not filed within statutory period despite commercial quantity.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to "default bail" under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act if the charge-sheet is filed after the expiry of 180 days without a valid extension of time.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the applicant holds an indefeasible right to be released on default bail.

It also directed

The Court allowed the application and directed that Rajendra Singh Mehta be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

01Facts

The applicant was intercepted by police on 01.05.2025 near Jafarpur Cut, where 4.050 kg of charas (commercial quantity) was allegedly recovered from his scooter’s trunk.

¶ 4

He was arrested and remanded to custody on 02.05.2025.

¶ 4

Despite the applicant raising a plea regarding the non-filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period, the Special Judge rejected his bail application on 12.11.2025.

¶ 4, 11

The charge-sheet was eventually filed on 02.12.2025, after a period of 214 days from the date of remand.

¶ 4, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to "default bail" under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act if the charge-sheet is filed after the expiry of 180 days without a valid extension of time.

¶ 6, 11

ii.2. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, concerning the merits of recovery and commercial quantity, apply to an application for default bail.

¶ 8, 12

03Law Applied

Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which prescribes a 180-day limit for completing investigations in specific offenses, extendable only via a report from the Public Prosecutor indicating progress and specific reasons for detention.

¶ 6, 7

The Supreme Court precedent M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485, which established that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right that accrues once the statutory period expires and an application is filed, regardless of the merits of the case.

¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20 Section 60 Section 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 167

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the applicant’s 180-day statutory period for investigation expired prior to the filing of the charge-sheet on 02.12.2025.

¶ 9

The prosecution failed to produce any valid order extending the investigation period under the proviso of Section 36-A(4); mere extension of judicial remand does not constitute a legal extension for investigation purposes.

¶ 7, 11

The Court reasoned that the lower court erred by rejecting the bail on merits while ignoring the statutory default; furthermore, Section 37 rigors are paramount for regular bail but are irrelevant to "default bail" claims, which focus solely on the procedural failure of the State to file a charge-sheet within the prescribed time.

¶ 11, 12

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the applicant holds an indefeasible right to be released on default bail.

¶ 13

The Court allowed the application and directed that Rajendra Singh Mehta be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶ 14

LawLens.Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF