Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for the grant of bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 146 dated 16.8.2013 under sections 21, 61, 85 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station, Kurali, District S.A.S. Nagar.
(2.) THE petitioner was arrested on 16.8.2013 and as per prosecution an alleged recovery of 2 gms of smack and 1500 tablets of phinotil was effected from him. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under its various sub -sections, the maximum period beyond which a person cannot be detained while investigation is under way has been provided and the same varies between 60 to 90 days keeping in view the gravity of offence. If the investigation is not completed within such stipulated period, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he makes an application for such purpose. However, under the Act, the maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been increased to 180 days for several categories of offences under the Act. Under Section 36 -A of the Act, the period of detention may go on to a total of one year subject to satisfaction and compliance of the stringent conditions provided therein i.e. (i) upon a report of the Public Prosecutor; (ii) which in turn indicates the progress of the investigation; (iii) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days; and (iv) after notice to the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, : 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 156 while dealing with the proviso inserted as clause (bb) in sub -section (4) of Section 20 of TADA which is pari materia with the proviso to sub -Section (4) of Section 36 -A of the Act had categorically held that even though the proviso does not specifically mandate the issuance of a notice to the accused while seeking extension yet the issuance of a notice has to be read into the provision which would be, both, in the interest of the accused, as also the prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the parties. Such requirement was held to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
(3.) ADVERTING back to the facts of the present case, it has gone undisputed that since investigation in the matter had not been completed and the maximum period of 180 days was expiring, an application under Section 36 -A of the N.D.P.S. Act was preferred by the investigating agency on 6.2.2014. The Trial Court allowed such application seeking extension of time on the same very day i.e. 6.2.2014 and granted an extension of 90 days for presentation of challan.;