[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhanath vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:5852]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Interim Bail Application No. 15388/2025
Sukhanath S/o Dhannanath, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Deoli
Kheda Police Station Kotadi District Bhilwara Rajasthan (At Present
Lodged In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10016/2025
Sukha Nath S/o Dhanna Nath, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Devali Kheda,
Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Lodged In Dist. Jail
Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv assisted by
Mr. Naresh Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 21/01/2026
Pronounced on:- 03/02/2026
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10016/2025
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS filed by the
petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR
No.0020/2025 registered at Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara
for the offences under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 05.02.2025,
the SHO of Police Station Kotdi, Bhilwara, acting upon secret
information regarding illegal transportation of contraband (opium),
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
conducted a nakabandi near Government School, Gogas. During
the nakabandi, a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. RJ51-
CA-4247 was intercepted. Upon following the mandatory
provisions under the NDPS Act, a search of the said vehicle was
conducted, and contraband (opium) weighing 6.36 kilograms was
recovered from the trunk. The petitioner was apprehended on the
spot and taken into custody.
3. The petitioner has remained in police custody since his arrest
i.e 05.02.2025. The Special Public Prosecutor, prior to the expiry
of the statutory period of 180 days from the date of arrest, filed
an application on 31.07.2025 before the competent criminal court
seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation and
filing of the charge-sheet under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
The learned trial court allowed the said application vide order
dated 31.07.2025 and extended the period for filing the charge-
sheet up to 04.08.2025.
4. The petitioner filed an application for default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) BNSS) before the
learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara, on 04.08.2025
at 11:00 AM, contending that the investigation was not completed
within time and that the statutory period of filing of result of
investigation had already expired on 01.08.2025 whereas, the
charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court on
04.08.2025 at 12:20 PM. The learned trial court, by order dated
05.08.2025, rejected the petitioner's bail application, holding that
the extension granted by the court under Section 36A(4) of the
NDPS Act was valid and operative and that no indefeasible right to
default bail had accrued to the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was
contended that the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 and, as
per the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the
investigating agency was required to file the charge-sheet within a
period of 180 days, which admittedly expired on 01.08.2025.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that though an application
dated 31.07.2025 seeking extension of time for submission of
result of investigation was filed by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, however, the said application was not accompanied by
any report indicating the progress of investigation, as mandatorily
required under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel
fervently submitted that mere filing of an application seeking
extension, without a detailed report disclosing progress of
investigation and reasons justifying detention of the accused
beyond the statutory period, is not proper compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
7. It was further contended that the learned trial court
mechanically allowed the said application on the same day,
without recording its satisfaction regarding the progress of
investigation or the necessity of further detention of the petitioner.
Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the extension
granted is illegal and non est, and the petitioner having acquired
an indefeasible right was required to be released on default bail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 187(3) BNSS)
immediately upon expiry of the statutory period.
8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody; he does not have any criminal antecedents; and
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the
benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
9. Per Contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. Learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that it is not in dispute that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner involves transportation of contraband
greater than commercial quantity and that the provisions of
Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act govern the period of investigation
in such cases. The statutory period for completion of investigation
in cases pertaining to offences under the NDPS Act is 180 days,
however, prior to the expiry of the said period, the application
dated 31.07.2025 seeking extension of time to complete the
investigation and file the result of investigation was moved by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor, which came to be allowed by the
learned Special Judge on the same day. Consequent thereto, the
statutory period for filing of the result of investigation stood
lawfully extended and the result of investigation was thereafter
filed on 04.08.2025 itself. Thus, the petitioner's claim of
indefeasible right to default bail is without merit and liable to be
rejected.
10. It was further submitted that even otherwise also, the
recovery of 6.36 kilograms of contraband (opium) which clearly
falls within the category of commercial quantity, and therefore,
looking to the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
12. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that it is
evident that the petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 in
connection with recovery of contraband of commercial quantity.
While the statutory period for completion of investigation is 180
days, the learned Special Judge, prior to the expiry of such period,
allowed an application filed by the Public Prosecutor on
31.07.2025 for extension of time to complete the investigation
and file the charge-sheet. Consequent thereto, the time for filing
of the charge-sheet stood extended and the charge-sheet was
thereafter filed on 04.08.2025.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, once an order
extending time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is passed by
a competent court before expiry of the statutory period, the
computation of the period for the purpose of Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. stands lawfully enlarged. In such circumstances, the
indefeasible right to default bail does not arise at all.
14. This position has been consistently recognized by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. In State of M.P. v. Rustam reported in
(1995) 3 SCC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Where the court has granted extension of time for completion
of investigation before the expiry of the prescribed period, the
accused cannot claim any right under Section 167(2) CrPC."
15. Similarly, in M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, DRI
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed:
"Once the statutory period for investigation expires, the
accused gains an indefeasible right to default bail, which cannot
be defeated by the prosecution by filing a chargesheet
subsequently. However, where the competent court has
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
granted an extension of time for completion of investigation in
accordance with law, the right to default bail does not arise at
all."
16. At this stage, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
since the extension order remained unchallenged, this Court
refrains itself from judging the veracity thereof at this stage.
17. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of
consideration in an application seeking default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. is limited to examining whether, on the date of filing
of such application, the accused was in custody beyond the
permissible statutory period without a valid extension. So long as
an order extending time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act
remains operative, the right to default bail does not crystallize.
Any challenge to the legality or correctness of the extension order
must be raised in appropriate proceedings before the learned
court below and cannot be considered at the stage of default bail.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal position
in Rustam and M. Ravindran, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
19. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
dismissed.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Interim Bail Application No.
15388/2025
1. The interim bail application under Section 483 BNSS Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.0020/2025 registered at Police Station
Kotdi, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/18 and
8/25 of the NDPS Act.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner seeks interim bail on the ground that his wife is
suffering from severe abdominal pain due to uterine infection and
has been advised to undergo hysterectomy, therefore, the
petitioner may be released on interim bail for a period of 15 days
since there is no one else to take care of his ailing wife. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record necessary
documents pertaining to the petitioner's wife's ailment.
3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for
interim bail and submitted that there are other family members of
the petitioner available to look after his ailing wife, therefore, the
presence of the petitioner is not essential for her treatment. He
also submitted that contraband (opium) greater than commercial
quantity has been recovered from the conscious possession of the
present petitioner, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and the possibility of his
fleeing away from justice, he does not deserve to be enlarged on
interim bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced at Bar and
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that grant of interim bail to an accused in an NDPS case where
contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered
from his conscious possession would not only be contrary to the
spirit and object of the NDPS Act but would also convey a wrong
message to society that after being involved in offences under the
NDPS Act, an accused can seek release on interim bail on grounds
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5852] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-15388/2025]
of ailment of his family member or some extraordinary family
exigency.
6. Keeping in view the fact that there is no emergency which
requires physical presence of the petitioner himself at the time of
treatment of his ailing wife since other family members of the
petitioner are present to care of his ailing wife so also the fact that
the petitioner is facing criminal trial for the offences under
Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined
to grant interim bail to the petitioner.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present interim bail application
is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
-Himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:27:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
