The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order of the Special Court, Gurdaspur, refusing default bail to two accused under the NDPS Act, holding that extension of time for filing the challan without producing or hearing the accused amounts to a grave violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and renders the extension illegal.
Case Details
- Case Title: Paras Thakur and Another v. State of Punjab
- Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal
- Case Number: CRR-3088-2025
- Date of Decision: 05 February 2026
The petitioners were arrested on 07 May 2025 in FIR No. 29 of 2025, registered under Sections 22, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Special Operation Cell, District Amritsar.
They were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on 08 May 2025 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.
Challenging the order dated 04 November 2025 passed by the Special Court, Gurdaspur, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking default bail under Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Their application for default bail had been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution had already obtained an extension of time to file the challan.
Petitioners’ Argument on Default Bail
Counsel for the petitioners argued that under the NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to file the challan within 180 days from the date of registration of the FIR.
Since the challan was not filed within the stipulated period, an indefeasible right to default bail accrued in favour of the accused.
It was further contended that although the prosecution moved an application for extension of time on 30 October 2025, which was allowed on 31 October 2025, the accused were neither produced before the court nor given notice of the extension application.
The 180-day period was to expire on 04 November 2025, and the extension was granted without allowing the accused to oppose it.
According to the petitioners, this procedure violated settled legal principles and rendered the extension order illegal, entitling them to default bail.
State’s Stand
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the offence alleged was serious in nature.
It argued that since the prosecution had applied for extension of time before the expiry of 180 days and the trial court had allowed the application, no indefeasible right to default bail had arisen in favour of the petitioners.
Court’s Examination of the Record
After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the High Court noted that the prosecution’s application seeking extension of time to file the challan was allowed on 31 October 2025, while the statutory period of 180 days was set to expire on 04 November 2025.
The Court reiterated that the right to default bail arises when the statutory period for filing the challan expires without a valid extension.
However, the crucial issue in the present case was whether the extension of time was granted in accordance with the law.
Supreme Court Precedents on Extension of Time
The High Court relied extensively on binding precedents of the Supreme Court, including Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410. Quoting the Constitution Bench, the Court reproduced the following observation:
“The indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of.”
The Court further referred to later Supreme Court rulings reiterating that when an application for extension of time is considered, the accused must be produced either physically or through virtual mode, as their presence enables them to oppose the request for further remand or extension.
The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s categorical observation:
“The failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.”
Finding on Violation of Article 21
Applying these principles, the High Court held that the extension of time for filing the challan directly affects the accused’s right to default bail and, therefore, their personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bare perusal of the extension order (Annexure P-2) showed
“no reference whatsoever to the presence or any submission or objection raised by the petitioners.”
The Court observed that had the petitioners been present, the order would have reflected the same.
The omission to ensure the presence of the accused or to hear them before granting an extension was held to be
“in clear breach of the settled legal requirement.”
Final Directions of the Court
In view of the facts and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the impugned order dated 04 November 2025 could not be sustained in law.
The Court held:
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 is quashed qua the petitioners and they are directed to be released on default bail.”
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
