Mumbai NDPS Court Grants Default Bail to Rahul Balkrishna Shedge and Anthony Kakakutty Paul Two Accused After High Court Quashes Extension Order

Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases in Greater Mumbai has granted default bail to Rahul Balkrishna Shedge (50) and Anthony Kakakutty Paul (50), who were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 75/2018. The decision, delivered by Special Judge M.S. Mungale (C.R. No. 44) on February 1, 2019, in NDPS Bail Application No. 909 of 2018, came after the Bombay High Court set aside a lower court order that had extended the time for filing the charge-sheet.

Background of the Case

Rahul Balkrishna Shedge and Anthony Kakakutty Paul were arrested on June 12, 2018. Under Section 36A of the NDPS Act, the investigation in such cases must typically be completed, and a charge-sheet filed, within 180 days. The 180-day period for these applicants expired on December 9, 2018.

On December 7, 2018, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the respondent in this case, had successfully sought an extension of 14 days from the Special Court to file the charge-sheet. However, this order was challenged by Rahul Shedge (applicant No. 1) and another accused (accused No. 4) in the Bombay High Court via Criminal Application Nos. 1448 of 2018 and 1459 of 2018.

On January 24, 2019, the Bombay High Court, in a common order, set aside the Special Court’s order dated December 7, 2018, which had granted the 14-day extension.

Applicants’ Argument for Default Bail

Ld. Adv. Shri Taraq Sayed, representing Rahul Shedge and Anthony Paul, contended that since the High Court had quashed the extension order, it must be presumed that no valid extension for filing the charge-sheet beyond 180 days was granted. As a result, the applicants had acquired an “indefeasible right” to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act, given that the charge-sheet was not filed within the initial 180-day period.

He cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat (1996), Union of India (UOI) Vs. Nirala Yadav (2014), and Sanjay Dutt Vs. State Through C.B.I. (1994), along with a Bombay High Court judgment in Rajubhai @ Jacob Mathew Pinto and another Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005), to support the principle of indefeasible right to default bail. He emphasized that the bail applications were filed on December 11, 2018, which was after the 180-day period expired (December 9, 2018) but before the charge-sheet was ultimately filed on December 21, 2018.

DRI’s Opposition

Ld. Spl.P.P. Smt. Anuradha Mane, representing the DRI, argued that since the Special Court had initially granted an extension until December 21, 2018, and the complaint was filed on that date, there was no “negligence or default” on their part. She contended that the application for default bail was not maintainable.

She further argued that the bar for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should also apply to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and that the indefeasible right to statutory bail could only be exercised between the period of default and the filing of the charge-sheet. She cited various High Court and Supreme Court judgments to buttress her arguments.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

Special Judge M.S. Mungale meticulously analyzed the legal positions and case precedents:

Applicability of Section 37 to Default Bail: The court rejected the Spl.P.P.’s contention that Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to statutory bail. Citing the Supreme Court’s Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal case (1996), the judge reiterated that Section 37 does not exclude the application of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Validity of Extension Order: The court held that since the Bombay High Court had, on January 24, 2019, set aside the Special Court’s December 7, 2018, order granting extension, it must be presumed that the request for extension was rejected. Consequently, the DRI was obligated to file the charge-sheet within the initial 180-day period (by December 9, 2018).
Exercising Indefeasible Right: The court affirmed the settled law from Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, Sanjay Dutt, and Uday Mohanlal Acharya cases, as reiterated in Union of India Vs. Nirala Yadav (2014). This legal principle states that if an accused applies for default bail before the charge-sheet is filed (even if the court initially erroneously denies it or the matter is pending before a higher forum), their indefeasible right to bail is not extinguished simply because the charge-sheet is filed subsequently.
Application Timeline: The applicants were arrested on June 12, 2018, and the 180-day period expired on December 9, 2018. They filed their bail application on December 11, 2018, which was clearly after the default but before the charge-sheet was filed on December 21, 2018. The court also acknowledged that the delay in hearing the bail applications was “bona fide” as they were dependent on the High Court’s order.

Given these facts and the established legal precedents, the court concluded that Rahul Balkrishna Shedge and Anthony Kakakutty Paul were entitled to statutory bail.

Order Granting Bail

The Bail Application No. 909 of 2018 was allowed with the following terms:

Bail Bond: Both applicants, Rahul Balkrishna Shedge and Anthony Kakakutty Paul, are to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹1,00,000/- each and providing a surety of the like amount. They are permitted to submit one or more sureties.
Reporting to DRI: They shall report to the Intelligence Officer on the last Monday of each month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. until the final disposal of the case.
Reporting Diary: They must maintain a diary of their reporting to the Intelligence Officer and produce it for court examination on each adjourned date.
Travel Restriction: They shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.
Passport Surrender: If they possess passports, they must produce them in court.
Residential Proof and Photograph: Before release, they must submit their respective photographs and documentary proof of their residential addresses.
No Tampering: They shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.