Shri Pushpa Raj Shukla@Golu v. The State Represented By The Public Prosecutor Port Blair

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (DB)/5/2024 Shri Pushpa Raj Shukla @ Golu Vs.

The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, Port Blair Mr. Sidhdartha Singha .... for the petitioner Ms. A.S.Zinu .... for the State June 13, 2024 [SR] Item No.1 The petitioner is in custody for about 261 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to statutory bail since the investigating officer could not file charge sheet within 180 days.

It is submitted that on 179th day of custody, an application for extension of time was filed within the contemplation of section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Without service any copy of the same to the petitioner and/or without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, such application was allowed, indefinitely extending the time even without specifying any stipulated time for filing of such charge sheet and completion of investigation. It is argued that such non-service of copy and not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner violates the principle of audi alteram patem which is an integral part of Natural Justice. As such, the extension order itself is vitiated and the petitioner ought to be granted statutory bail.

In addition, learned counsel submits that his mother is ailing and there is none else than the petitioner to look after her, which also justifies the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Pritam vs. State of Haryana and Gurmej Singh vs. Sate of Haryana to highlight the principle that before extension of time under section

36A(4), a notice is required to be given to the accused person and opportunity of hearing has also to be given to him. Learned counsel for the prosecution categorically opposes such prayer for bail and places reliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Upon query of the court, it transpires that the investigating officer requires at least 30 more days to gather the evidence, nonfurnishing of which was the ground for extension of time. Keeping a balance between the strict rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the fact the no copy of the extension application was given to the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the investigating authorities ought to be given further 30 days' time to file the charge sheet upon completion of investigation. Although the extension might have been vitiated in law for non-service of notice on the petitioner, the same ipso facto does not render the extension order a nullity so as to construe the petitioner's prayer as that of a statutory bail.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a proper challenge against the order dated March 26, 2024 granting extension under section 36 A(4) of the NDPS Act if the petitioner so chooses.

Subject to the outcome of such challenge, if preferred, the petitioner is also granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail after 30 days from date, irrespective of whether charge sheet is filed by the investigating agency or not.

It is expected that that charge sheet shall be filed upon completion of investigation within 30 days. Otherwise, an element of institutional inefficiency may crop up.

However, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, CRM(DB)/5/2024 is dismissed in the light of the above observations.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )