[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Union Of India Through Directorate Of ... vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2026

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.RA/834/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                    SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 834 of 2026
                      ==========================================================
                                UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE
                                                INTELLIGENCE (DRI)
                                                       Versus
                                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS. KETKI P JHA(9864) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MS KETKI P. JHA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI
                      MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                           Date : 07/05/2026

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. The application is under section 438 read with section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as the 'BNSS, 2023' for short) with a prayer to set aside the order rejecting remand matter in respect of the accused in NDPS Case No.10 of 2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 28.01.2026.

2. The applicant is Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Inteligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit (AZU). The petitioner had approached the Additional Sessions Court, Ahmedabad making a prayer on 20.01.2026 for the custodial interrogation under their remad of the accused.

3. The facts stated that the charge-sheet was filed vide NDPS Case No.10 of 2025 dated 11.02.2025, whereby the present respondent No.2 - Kevin Nileshbhai Khei, was arraigned as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

accused No.2. Warrant of arrest was issued by the NDPS Special Court under section 70 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the 'NDPS Act"

for short), and as per the direction was produced before the NDPS Special Court. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 20, 23, 28, 29 read with section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

4. The Intelligence Officer (DRI) AZU, Ahmedabad stated that the applicant remained absconding and failed to join the investigation. A lookout circular (LOC) was issued by the office and accordingly was intercepted by Imigration Authority at Calcutta Airport on 08.01.2026. A fresh 'warrant of arrest" under section 70 of the NDPS Act was issued by the City Sessions Court, NDPS Special Court, Ahmedabad directing the officer to arrest and produce him before the NDPS Court and accordingly, on the arrest of the applicant on 09.01.2026 was produced before the Court.

5. By moving the application on 20.01.2026 remand of the accused was asked for on the ground that during the course of further investigation, it revealed that the accused was associated with several international drug handlers and also had domestic collaborators, thus, DRI wanted to unearth the connection with an aim to dismantle the wider international drug syndicate by getting further details from the accused.

6. The custodial interrogation by way of remand was asked on the ground:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

(i) to identify other international drug handlers;

(ii) to identify domestic collaborators;

(ii) reconstruct the completed chain of smuggling operation.

7. Thus, on that facts, basis and circumstances, the remand of the respondent no.2 was asked by the DRI Ahmedabad Zonal unit for the period of 3 days.

8. Learned advocate Mr.P.B.Khambholja appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that on 08.01.2026, the respondent was arrested from Calcutta and was brought to the Court on 09.01.2026 and at that time, the applicant DRI had asked for remand which was granted for 2 days. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja stated that certain confessional statements were recorded of the respondent and stated that the grounds on which the remand was asked for by the DRI was recorded by the Sessions Court and accordingly 2 days remand was granted. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja has submitted that the prosecution agency has sufficient opportunity, at that time, to deal with those issues which they found during the investigation and stated that the application Exhibit-10 was rejected by the Sessions Court on 28.01.2026 as was moved on the same grounds as was raised earlier when two day remand of the accused was granted and after a very long period, that order has been challenged before this Court by filing the revision only on 23.03.2026. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja submitted that as per the provision of Section 187 of the BNSS, any prayer of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

remand could be made only upto 40 or 60 days, as the case may be of the detention and stated that the delay in filing the application itself would prejudice the statutory right of the respondent.

9. Countering the same, learned Standing Counsel Ms.Ketki P. Jha submitted relying on the judgment in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. the State represented by Deputy Director And Ors. reported in 2024 Vol.3 SCC 51, to state that the referred judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No(S).18063/2024, and thus stated that provision under Section 187 of the BNSS would permit the total period of remand as 15 days and the said provision permits the remand period to be in part. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel Ms.Ketki that the provision mandates that the remand period should not be extended beyond 15 days in total, subject to the provision of Subsection (3) of Section 187 of the BNSS.

10. Having heard both the sides, it would be required to reproduce the relevant provisions of Subsection (2) and (3) of Section 187 of the BNSS for consideration:

"187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 58, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter specified relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, irrespective of whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-

section (3), and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction. (3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding--

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

11. Section 187 of the BNSS replaces the earlier provision of

Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. Section 187 of the BNSS finds some

amendment with an inclusion of certain expressions as could be

noted as "or in parts at any time during the initial 40 days or 60

days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days as the

case may be as provided in Subsection (3)."

12. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja contended that Section 187

does not make any specific provision with regard to the period for

filing the charge-sheet under the NDPS Act, however, countering

the same, learned Standing Counsel Ms.Ketki has referred to the

provisions under Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, to submit that

the relevant amendment has to be read in consonance, where 90

days have been recorded, it should be construed to be read as of

180 days and thus submitted that analogous interpretation has to

be made for the provision under Section 187 of the BNSS.

Section 36(A)(4) reads as under:

"(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

13. Subsection (4) of Section 36(A) provides that in place of 90

days, for the purpose of the offences punishable as referred, under

Section 167(2) of the CR.P.C. it should be construed as 180 days.

The proviso to it further clarifies that if it is not possible to

complete the investigation within the said period of 180 days, the

special Court may extend the said period upto one year on the

report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the

investigation, and the special reason for the detention of the

accused beyond the said period of 180 days. Thus, having taken

into consideration this provision of law under the NDPS Act, and

the facts of the present case, respondent no.2 was granted 2 days

remand and the accused was interrogated from 09.01.2026 to

11.01.2026 till 14:00 hours, the learned Sessions Judge was of the

opinion that the reasons assigned in the remand application and

the earlier remand application were identical and that according to the Court, sufficient time for interrogation was granted to the

prosecution agency and the Special Court thus noted that the

material investigation was over and the remand application thus

was unwarranted. It has been submitted by learned Standing

Counsel Ms.Ketki appearing for the DRI that it was only on the

statement of the accused during the custodial interrogation that

further details could be procured and the DRI thus found that the

accused was associated with several international drug handlers

and was also having domestic collaborators. Hence, on that basis

for the further investigation and to dismantle the vital

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

international drug syndicate, the custodial interrogation was prayed

so as to identify further the international drug handlers and the

domestic collaborators. Ms.Ketki stated that it could only be

possible by the further interrogation of the applicant and searching

for details of such other collaborators and drug handlers and if

possible, face to face interrogation would also be necessary with

any potential accused.

14. The statutory scheme under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.

permitted remand for a period of 15 days while Section 187 of the

BNSS specifically speaks of remand for a period not exceeding 15

days, "in the whole, or in parts". The period as mentioned in

Subsection (2) of Section 187 of the BNSS refers that it should be

first 40 days or 60 days out of the detention period of 60 days or

90 days respectively, depending upon the severity of the offence

and on the expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days or 90 days

as the case may be, the accused becomes eligible for release on default/ statutory bail. Since the present matter arises under the

NDPS Act, and as per Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, the

provision has to be read as 180 days instead of 90 days and as

per provided under proviso, the period can be extended for one

year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress

of the investigation by assigning specific reasons for detention of

the accused beyond the period of 180 days.

15. Here a useful reference is required to be made of the case of

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. the State represented by Deputy Director

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

And Ors. reported in 2024 Vol.3 SCC 51, where the issue was

with regard to the provision under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002, whereby the case of Central

Bureau Of Investigation V.s Anupam J.Kulkarni reported in

1992(3) SCC 141 has been concluded to be referred for

reconsideration by reference to a Larger Bench. There are

necessary observation in summary of the law is in para no.97

which reads as under:

"97. Summation of law 97.1.When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie. Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate since custody becomes judicial.

97.2. Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such non-compliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002.

97.3. An order of remand has to be challenged only before a higher forum as provided under the CrPC, 1973 when it depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 read with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/834/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026

undefined

97.4. Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 has got no application to an arrest made under the PMLA 2002.

97.5. The maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation - 60 or 90 days, as a whole.

97.6. The words "such custody" occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only a police custody but also that of other investigating agencies.

97.7. The word "custody" under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 shall mean actual custody.

97.8. Curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, act of God, an order of Court not being the handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction.