***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) –

1. This common order shall dispose of the abovementioned two revision petitions as they arise out of the same FIR and seek relief relating to the extension of the period for completion of investigation and grant of default bail.

2. Petition bearing CRR No. 1174 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No. 57 dated 04.10.2025, registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station State Special Operations Cell, Amritsar, whereby the period for completion of investigation and presentation of the final report was extended by 30 days under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, whereas the petition bearing CRR No. 1326 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar, whereby his application for grant of default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) was dismissed on the ground that the extension of time granted by the Court was still operative.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petitions are that on 04.10.2025, SI Harpreet Singh along with other police officials was present in the area of Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, in connection with patrolling and search of persons involved in smuggling of narcotic substances. During that time, secret information was received regarding Gurjant Singh and the present petitioner Gurwail Singh being in contact with a Pakistan-based smuggler and transporting heroin and illegal weapons. On the basis of the said information, the police party proceeded towards the area near village Panjwar, District Tarn Taran. As per the further allegations, the police party intercepted a Mahindra XUV 3XO bearing registration No. PB46AM1298, in which the petitioner Gurwail Singh and co-accused Gurjant Singh were travelling. The petitioner was sitting on the driving seat. During the search of the vehicle, 2 kilograms 500 grams of heroin, three 9 mm pistols and two 30-bore pistols, along with magazines, were recovered. The petitioner and co-accused were arrested and the recovered articles were taken into possession.

4. During investigation, the prosecution moved an application dated 30.03.2026 seeking extension of time for completion of investigation and presentation of the final report. The reason assigned in the application was that the chemical report of the heroin and the inspection report of the recovered weapons from FSL, Mohali, were still awaited. The learned Special Judge, Amritsar, allowed the application and extended the period by 30 days by observing that the delay in receiving the FSL report was beyond the control of the investigating agency. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 187(3) of the BNSS seeking default bail. The learned Special Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 09.04.2026, dismissed the said application, observing that the extension order dated 30.03.2026 continued to subsist and that the validity of the said order could not be examined in the proceedings for default bail. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed these petitions.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 30.03.2026 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it was passed without ensuring the presence of the petitioner, either physically or through video conferencing. It is argued that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to oppose the prayer for extension of time. It is further argued that the application seeking extension was moved by the Investigating Officer and the record does not disclose a proper report of the Public Prosecutor containing independent application of mind as required under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that mere non-receipt of the FSL report could not have been made the sole ground for extending the period of investigation. It is argued that the challan could have been presented without the FSL report, which could subsequently be placed on record by way of a supplementary report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the right to default bail had accrued in favour of the petitioner upon expiry of the statutory period and could not have been defeated by an order passed without complying with the mandatory safeguards. It is submitted that the application for default bail was filed on 09.04.2026, before the filing of the challan on 21.04.2026. Accordingly, it is prayed that both petitions be allowed and the petitioner be released on default bail. 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 petitioner has relied upon Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484.

6. Separate replies have been filed by the respondent-State. On the strength of the same, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and involve recovery of commercial quantity of heroin along with five pistols and magazines. It is submitted that the FSL report relating to the recovered heroin had been received on 30.03.2026, whereas the report relating to the recovered weapons was still awaited. It is further submitted that the extension of time was granted by the learned Special Court after considering the circumstances of the case and the same was operative when the application for default bail was decided. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the final report in the case was presented before the learned trial Court on 21.04.2026 and that the investigation had proceeded in accordance with law. It is, accordingly, argued that no ground is made out for interfering with the orders passed by the learned Special Court and the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.

8. The short question which arises for consideration in the present petitions is whether the extension of time granted vide order dated 30.03.2026 could legally operate against the petitioner so as to defeat his right to default bail. The proviso to Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act incorporates safeguards before the period of detention can be extended beyond the statutory period. 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 accused has a right to oppose the prayer for extension.

9. In the present case, the order dated 30.03.2026 shows that the extension application was considered on the ground that the FSL reports were awaited. However, the order does not record that the petitioner was produced before the Court, either physically or through video conferencing, or that he was afforded an opportunity to oppose the prayer for extension. The record also does not demonstrate compliance with the mandatory safeguards prescribed under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act before extending the period of investigation. It is equally significant that the application for extension was moved by the Investigating Officer, citing non-receipt of the FSL reports. The statutory requirement of a report of the Public Prosecutor is intended to ensure an independent consideration of the necessity for further detention and the progress of investigation. A mere forwarding of the request of the Investigating Officer cannot establish compliance with the statutory requirement. The pendency of an FSL report, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient justification for extending the statutory period in the absence of compliance with the mandatory safeguards. The prosecution is not precluded from presenting the final report in accordance with law and filing the requisite material subsequently, wherever legally permissible. The seriousness of the allegations or the quantity of the alleged recovery cannot dispense with the procedural requirements governing the extension of the statutory period.

10. The learned Special Judge, while dismissing the application for default bail, proceeded on the basis that the extension order dated 30.03.2026 continued to subsist and that its validity could not be examined in the bail proceedings. However, the validity of the extension order is directly relevant to determining whether the statutory period stood validly extended against the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his statutory right merely by relying upon an order passed without compliance with the mandatory safeguards. The petitioner was admittedly arrested on 04.10.2025. The statutory period of 180 days expired on 01.04.2026. Therefore, the petitioner would ordinarily be entitled to claim default bail from 02.04.2026. The record further shows that the petitioner moved the application for default bail on 09.04.2026, whereas the final report was presented on 21.04.2026. Thus, the application for default bail was filed before the presentation of the challan. The subsequent filing of the challan cannot retrospectively cure a legally unsustainable extension order or defeat a right which had already accrued and was availed of by the petitioner in accordance with law.

11. 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.

12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the extension order dated 30.03.2026 cannot be relied upon against the petitioner for defeating his right to default bail. Consequently, the order dated 09.04.2026 dismissing his application for default bail also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are allowed. The order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar, extending the period for completion of investigation is set aside qua the petitioner. The order dated 09.04.2026 dismissing the application for default bail is also set aside.

13. The petitioner Gurwail Singh is held entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. He shall be released from custody upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to his not being required in any other case and subject to the statutory conditions applicable to the grant of default bail.

14. 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 learned trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.

15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected petition.

Order accordingly.

********