Court Holds Failure to Produce Accused During Extension Hearing Violates Personal Liberty; Rejects Prosecution's Reliance on Extension Order and Orders Immediate Release of Eight Applicants
In a landmark decision dated October 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, granted default bail to eight accused persons involved in a massive narcotics case concerning over 1800 kilograms of Mephedrone (MD), a commercial quantity of controlled substance. The case, investigated initially by the Pune Crime Branch and later taken over by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Mumbai Zonal Unit, involved multiple arrests and seizures across Maharashtra and Delhi.
The accused-Bhimaji Parshuram Sabale, Shoyeb Saeed Shaikh, Ayub Akbarsha Makandar, Cynthia @ Favour Ugababang Onyekpe, Ankita Narayanchandrda Das, Sandeep Hanuman Singh Yadav, Devender Ramphool Yadav, and Haider Noor Shaikh-had their bail applications rejected by the trial court. They approached the High Court seeking enlargement on default bail grounds under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The crux of the applicants' argument centered on the failure of the prosecution and the trial court to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards while granting an extension of the investigation period beyond the initial 180 days stipulated by law. Specifically, the applicants contended that they were not physically produced before the trial court, nor were they informed about the prosecution's application for extension or the Special Public Prosecutor's report indicating progress and reasons for further detention. The prosecution relied on an extension order dated August 14, 2024, and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet within the extended period to deny the applicants' entitlement to default bail.
Justice Jadhav extensively analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents, including the Constitution Bench judgment in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI and the recent ruling in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat. The Court underscored that the right to default bail is a constitutional safeguard tied to the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that extension of the investigation period is not a mere administrative formality but an order that directly curtails this liberty.
The Court emphasized that production of the accused-either physically or through video conferencing-before the court when the extension application is considered is a mandatory safeguard. Mere intimation through the Jail Superintendent, refusal of accused to accept copies of the application, or appearance of advocates do not fulfill this requirement. Absence of such production amounts to a gross illegality, violating the accused's rights.
Further, the Court held that the filing of an application for extension before the expiry of 180 days does not automatically extend the statutory period. The Court must pass a valid order complying with statutory and judicial safeguards. The prosecution's reliance on the extension order was invalidated due to non-compliance with these safeguards. Consequently, the right to default bail accrued to the applicants upon expiry of the original 180-day period.
While acknowledging the gravity of the offences and the large quantity of contraband involved, the Court clarified that such considerations are relevant for regular bail but cannot override the statutory right to default bail which arises due to procedural lapses by the prosecution.
The Court ordered immediate release of the applicants on furnishing personal bonds with sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the investigating officer, cooperation during trial, restriction on leaving Maharashtra without court permission, and deposition of passports. Special conditions were imposed for foreign national Cynthia @ Favour Ugababang Onyekpe, including court permission for bail bonds and communication to the Registration Officer under the Foreigners Act.
The Court declined the Narcotics Control Bureau's request to stay the effect of its order despite the serious societal implications of the offence, holding that the decision was based on the fundamental right to personal liberty.
This judgment reiterates the primacy of procedural safeguards and personal liberty in criminal jurisprudence and sends a strong message to investigative agencies and courts to strictly adhere to statutory mandates while extending investigation periods in NDPS cases.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Default bail - Extension of time for investigation under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act - Production of accused before Court, physically or through video conferencing, when extension application is considered, is a necessary safeguard - Mere intimation through Jail Superintendent, refusal to accept copies, or appearance of advocates is not sufficient compliance - If such mandatory safeguard is not followed, extension order cannot defeat accrued right to default bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 22(a), 29, 8(c) of the NDPS Act; Sections 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred for comparison)
Bhimaji Parshuram Sabale v. Union of India, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992747
