- (1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 05.04.2014, passed by the trial Court, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(2.) The admitted facts are that on two occasions, applications for extension of time were filed and were allowed. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that on both the occasions, the period was extended without even issuing notice to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 942, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court posed the question as follows :- " 4(i) the two applications for extension dated 10th July, 2007 and 30th January, 2008, did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 36A(4) of Act and were without notice to the accused and as such the orders were a nullity and any extension of time beyond 180 days was, therefore, contrary to law. For this submission he has placed reliance on the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs State of Maharashtra and others, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 156. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, has, however, supported the judgment of the Special Judge and the High Court by submitting that two applications for extension of time had been made by respondent No.1 in accordance with the provisions of Section 36A (4) of the Act and that the Special Judge, had, after applying his mind, granted the extensions. He has, further, pointed out that both the Special Judge and the High Court had taken all relevant factors into consideration and keeping in view the larger purpose behind the Act and the great social and legal ramifications, which it raised, required that it should be strictly enforced. 10. The maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167(2) of the Code has been increased to 180 days for several categories of offences under the Act but the proviso authorizes a yet further period of detention which may in total go upto one year, provided the stringent conditions provided therein are satisfied and are complied with. The conditions provided are : (1) a report of the public prosecutor, (2) which indicates the progress of the investigation, and (3) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days, and (4) after notice to the accused. 11. The question to be noticed at this stage is as to whether the two applications for extension that had been filed by the public prosecutor seeking an extension beyond 180 days met the necessary conditions. We find that the matter need not detain us as it is no longer res integra and is completely covered by the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu's case . In this case, the Bench was dealing with the proviso inserted as clause (bb) in Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of TADA, which is parimateria with the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 36-A of the Act. This Court accepted the argument of the accused that an extension beyond 180 days could be granted but laid a rider that it could be so after certain conditions were satisfied. It was observed : ' It is true that neither clause (b) nor clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 TADA specifically provide for the issuance of such a notice but in our opinion the issuance of such a notice must be read into these provisions both in the interest of the accused and the prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the parties. This is a requirement of the principles of natural justice and the issuance of notice to the accused or the public prosecutor, as the case may be, would accord with fair play in action, which the Courts have always encouraged and even insisted upon. It would also strike a just balance between the interest of the liberty of an accused on the one hand and the society at large through the prosecuting agency on the other hand. There is no prohibition to the issuance of such a notice to the accused or the public prosecutor in the scheme of the Act and no prejudice whatsoever can be caused by the issuance of such a notice to any party.'
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Sayed Mohd Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD, 2012 12 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court held as follows :- "24. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the relevant provisions of law and the decision cited, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Raval. There is no denying the fact that on 17th July, 2012, when CR No.86 of 2012 was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the custody of the Appellant was held to be illegal and an application under Section 167 (2) Criminal Procedure Code was made on behalf of the Appellant for grant of statutory bail which was listed for hearing. Instead of hearing the application, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate adjourned the same till the next day when the Public Prosecutor filed an application for extension of the period of custody and investigation and on 20th July, 2012 extended the time of investigation and the custody of the Appellant for a further period of 90 days with retrospective effect from 2nd June, 2012. Not only is the retrospectivity of the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate untenable, it could not also defeat the statutory right which had accrued to the Appellant on the expiry of 90 days from the date when the Appellant was taken into custody. Such right, as has been commented upon by this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt and the other cases cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General, could only be distinguished once the charge-sheet had been filed in the case and no application has been made prior thereto for grant of statutory bail. It is well-established that if an accused does not exercise his right to grant of statutory bail before charge-sheet is filed, he loses his right to such benefit once such charge-sheet is filed and can, thereafter, only apply for regular bail.";