The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted default bail to Akash and Vishal in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that the prosecution could not rely on a three-month extension of the investigation period when the accused were neither notified nor heard before the extension was granted.
Justice Manisha Batra, by a common oral order dated August 31, 2026, allowed three connected revision petitions. The Court held that the statutory safeguards governing extension beyond 180 days had not been followed.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from FIR No. 442 dated December 22, 2025, registered at Police Station Hodal, Palwal, under Sections 22-C, 22-B and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case was that a police raid led to the recovery of 300 Pentazocine injections and 20 Binorphine injections. During the investigation, Akash and Vishal were arrested on December 24 and 25, 2025, respectively.
The statutory 180-day period expired on June 22, 2026, for Akash and June 23, 2026, for Vishal. The charge-sheet had not been filed by then. Meanwhile, the trial court had granted the prosecution another three months to complete the investigation.
The accused challenged the extension, arguing that they had not received notice of the prosecution's request and had not been given an opportunity to oppose it.
Court's Observation
The High Court found this objection significant. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that an accused must be informed and given an opportunity to contest a request for extending the investigation period.
The Court observed:
“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 record showed that notice had been issued to other accused in separate remand proceedings, but Akash and Vishal were neither noticed nor represented when the extension application was considered.
The Court further held that the later filing of the charge-sheet could not take away a right to default bail that had already accrued and been exercised before the charge-sheet was filed. The accused had moved their bail applications on June 25, 2026, while the charge-sheet was filed before the trial court only on August 3, 2026.
Decision
The High Court set aside the May 29, 2026 extension order insofar as it concerned the petitioners and also quashed the July 1, 2026 order rejecting their default bail applications.
The Court held that Akash and Vishal were entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and ordered their release on furnishing personal and surety bonds, subject to the stated conditions.
The Court clarified that its order expressed no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the evidence collected during investigation.
