Recently, the Delhi High Court held that the extension of time granted to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for completing the investigation, without notifying or producing the accused, was unlawful. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the omission to inform the accused rendered the extension order “gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21,” ultimately entitling him to default bail.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a narcotics investigation initiated after the NCB intercepted a courier parcel containing a substantial quantity of Codeine Phosphate tablets, believed to be linked to a wider trafficking chain. During the inquiry, the petitioner was taken into custody, and a search of his residence led to the alleged recovery of a small quantity of suspected psychotropic tablets. He was subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Under the NDPS Act, the investigation was required to conclude within the statutory 180-day period, failing which the accused would acquire the right to default bail. Before this period lapsed, the Special Public Prosecutor sought an extension of time to complete the investigation, which the trial court granted. When no chargesheet was filed within the original timeline, the petitioner invoked his right to default bail, but his plea was rejected on the strength of the extension order. Both the rejection and the extension itself were later placed under judicial scrutiny before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted that the extension of the investigation period was granted in violation of the mandatory requirement to notify or produce the accused, thereby contravening Section 36A(4) NDPS Act, Section 187 BNSS, and Article 21 of the Constitution. He argued that despite being in judicial custody, he was not produced, physically or virtually, when the prosecution sought more time, depriving him of the chance to oppose the request. Citing Jigar v. State of Gujarat and Judgebir Singh v. NIA, he stressed that the presence of the accused is indispensable in such proceedings. He further contended that the sampling process was delayed contrary to Section 52A of the NDPS Act, that only a non-commercial quantity was attributed to him, and that the recovery was fabricated. According to him, once the statutory period expired, his right to default bail crystallised and could not be defeated by an extension order issued in breach of mandatory safeguards.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The NCB opposed the petition, contending that the extension order was validly granted based on a reasoned report submitted by the SPP, and that the accused’s right to default bail was neither automatic nor accrued, since the statutory period had not expired when the extension was granted. It was argued that the accused was present through video conferencing on the relevant date, as noted in the judicial remand proceedings, and that the extension was issued after complying with legal requirements. The NCB further maintained that substantial contraband had been seized in the operation, including material traced through disclosures linked to the petitioner, and the investigation involved a larger organised trafficking network. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petition was an attempt to derail a complex investigation and ought to be dismissed.
Observation of the Court:
The Court reiterated that the right to default bail flows directly from Article 21of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed except through a fair procedure. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jigar v. State of Gujarat, the Court emphasised that “the accused must be present either physically or virtually when the Court considers a request for more time to complete the investigation.” “Non presence and no Notice is not a mere procedural irregularity, but is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21”, added the Bench.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that "If not produced or not informed, the procedure W.P.(CRL) 3778/2025 Page 15 of 18 becomes unfair to the accused. Since extending time directly affects the accused’s right to default bail, an order passed without his presence, cannot be treated as a small or technical mistake. It is a serious violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21."
The Court noted in reference to the order issued in October 2025 that“A bare reading of the order shows that there is no reference whatsoever to the presence or of any submission or objection raised by the Petitioner,” and the production memo merely stated that the accused was in judicial custody, not that he had been produced. The Court rejected the NCB’s argument that production for remand implied presence during the extension proceedings, holding that “it may have been done on the same day, but not at the same time.”
Concluding that the extension request was considered without notifying the accused, the Court held that the order was “fundamentally flawed” and incapable of depriving the petitioner of his statutory right to default bail.
The decision of the Court:
The Court set aside the orders extending the investigation period and rejecting default bail, holding that in the absence of a valid extension, the petitioner’s right to default bail had automatically accrued. Declaring that he was “entitled to default bail as a matter of right,” the Court granted statutory bail and affirmed that any extension granted without notice or production of the accused is invalid under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, thereby restoring the constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Jaivardhan Dhawan v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3778/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Puneet Mittal, Advs. Abhaid Parikh, Kartik Rathi, Vipul Agrawal, Sakshi Mendiratta and Kashish Jain
Advocate for the Respondent: SSC Arun Khatri, Advs. Shelly Dixit and Tracy Sebastian
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
