Navita Singh, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 36(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act) read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail in FIR No. 155 dated 01.10.2013 under Sections 21 of the Act pertaining to Police Station Sarhali District Tarn Taran.
(2.) THE facts of the case need not to be gone into as bail is being sought on the ground that charge -sheet was not filed by the police within the stipulated period. It may be mentioned here that the period of 180 days was expiring on 29.03.2014 and the prosecution applied for extension of time to complete the investigation on 28.03.2014. It was pleaded therein that on account of the report of Chemical Examiner, Kharar having not been received, it was not possible to file the charge -sheet within the stipulated period Number of reminders had been written to Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran for getting the needful done but to no avail. On account of the said reason, the prosecution had to apply for extension of time. The said application and also the application of the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was decided on 17.04.2014 by the Special Judge, Tarn Taran. The period for investigation was extended by two and half months and the application of the present petitioner for bail was declined.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that it was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Saved Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD and others - : 2013(1) W.L.C. (SC) Criminal 442 that the order for extension of time for investigation could not be passed with retrospective effect. In the said case, application was moved by the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. which was kept pending by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and before the next date, the Public Prosecutor filed an application for extension of period of custody and investigation. The Magistrate dismissed the application for bail and allowed extension for a further period of 90 days, with retrospective effect from 02.06.2012. The accused had moved the application for bail on 17.07.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case also, the prescribed period had expired on 29.03.2014 but the order for extension was passed on 17.04.2014, meaning thereby that extension was granted retrospectively and the order was thus not sustainable.;