2011 (2) TMI 1218 - HC - Indian Laws

Extension of time - offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii)(A), 21(A), 22(C) of the NDPS Act,1985 - applicant filed bail application seeking release on bail inter alia on the ground that the applicant was not heard before granting extension of time by learned NDPS Court - held that - order granting extension of time was patently illegal, the learned Special Judge shall pass an order granting bail to the applicant on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper, applicant has been in custody from 9.1.2010, the learned Special Judge shall decide the application dated 1.11.2010 expeditiously and in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, applicant be released on interim bail till the application is decided by the Special Judge in terms of the order passed by this Court

Summary

Issues:
- Extension of time to file charge sheet without giving an opportunity to be heard to the applicant
- Legality of the order granting extension of time
- Bail application based on the grounds of not being heard before granting extension of time
- Similarity of facts with another case leading to setting aside of the order granting extension of time

Extension of Time to File Charge Sheet:
The judgment deals with the extension of time sought by the respondent to file a charge sheet under the NDPS Act, 1985. The respondent requested two extensions beyond the stipulated period, which were granted. The applicant subsequently filed a bail application, arguing that they were not heard before the extension of time was granted. The court noted that the applicant's contention was valid as per Section 36(A)(4) of the Act, and the order granting extension was set aside.

Legality of the Order Granting Extension:
The applicant raised concerns about the legality of the order granting the extension of time to file the charge sheet. The court found merit in the argument and set aside the order, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to be heard before such extensions are granted, as mandated by the law.

Bail Application Grounds:
The applicant's bail application was based on the premise that they were not given a chance to present their case before the extension of time for filing the charge sheet was approved. The court, in line with a similar case, directed the Special Judge to reconsider the application, ensuring that the applicant is heard before a decision is made on the bail plea.

Similarity of Facts with Another Case:
The judgment draws parallels between the present case and a previous one, where the extension of time was set aside due to the applicant not being heard before the grant. The court decided to dispose of the present application in a similar manner, emphasizing the importance of following due process and granting an opportunity to be heard before extending the time for filing a charge sheet.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay set aside the order granting extension of time, directing the Special Judge to reconsider the bail application in light of the findings from a similar case. The court stressed the need for due process and timely decision-making, ensuring that the applicant's rights are upheld.