Mumbai – In a significant development from February 1, 2019, a Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases in Mumbai granted default bail to Sarpreet Singh, an accused in a major narcotics case, following a Bombay High Court ruling that effectively negated an extension granted to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for filing its charge-sheet.

Sarpreet Singh, a 40-year-old businessman from Jalandhar, Punjab, had been arrested by the DRI on June 13, 2018. Under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, investigating agencies typically have 180 days to file a charge-sheet in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. If they fail to do so, and no valid extension is granted, the accused becomes entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act.

The Crucial Extension and High Court Intervention

The DRI had initially sought and obtained a 14-day extension from the Special Court on December 7, 2018, pushing the deadline for filing the charge-sheet until December 21, 2018. The DRI subsequently filed its complaint on December 21, 2018, believing it to be within the extended period.

However, this extension was challenged by co-accused Rahul Shedge (Accused No. 1) and another co-accused (Accused No. 4) before the Bombay High Court. In a pivotal common order dated January 24, 2019, the High Court set aside the Special Court’s December 7, 2018 order that had granted the 14-day extension.

This High Court ruling had immediate and profound implications for Sarpreet Singh’s bail application. With the extension nullified, the DRI was effectively deemed to have failed in filing its charge-sheet within the original 180-day period, which for Sarpreet Singh expired on December 10, 2018.

Arguments in Court

Sarpreet Singh’s counsel, Shri. Rajesh Bindra, argued that due to the Bombay High Court’s decision, the initial order extending time was invalidated, meaning the DRI had failed to comply with the statutory timeline. This, he contended, conferred an “indefeasible right” to statutory bail upon his client. Mr. Bindra cited various Supreme Court judgments, including Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Union of India v. Nirala Yadav, to bolster his arguments that the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not override an accused’s right to default bail.

On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor for DRI, Smt. Anuradha Mane, contended that the charge-sheet had indeed been filed on December 21, 2018, within the then-valid extended period, and thus, the default bail application was not maintainable. She also argued that the bar for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should apply even to statutory bail and that the indefeasible right to bail could only be exercised between the period of default and the actual filing of the charge-sheet. She presented her own set of precedents to support these claims, including the landmark Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI case.

Special Judge’s Detailed Reasoning

Special Judge M.S. Mungale’s detailed order thoroughly analyzed the legal arguments and precedents.

1. Applicability of Section 37 NDPS: The judge firmly rejected the DRI’s contention that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act override the right to statutory bail. Citing the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench judgment in Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal’s case (1996), the court affirmed that Section 37 “does not exclude the application of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code.”
2. Impact of High Court’s Order: The judge highlighted the critical aspect of the Bombay High Court’s January 24, 2019 order. He unequivocally stated, “it is to be presumed that the request of the respondent/complainant for extension of time beyond 180 days for filing the charge-sheet/complaint was rejected by this Court.” This meant the DRI was legally obligated to file the charge-sheet by December 10, 2018, which it failed to do.
3. Understanding “Indefeasible Right” and “Availed Of”: The court delved into the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “indefeasible right” to default bail, particularly from Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI and Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra. These judgments clarify that the right to default bail accrues and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default until the charge-sheet is filed. Crucially, if the accused applies for bail under this provision upon the expiry of the period, they must be released forthwith. The phrase “if already not availed of” means that if the accused files an application for bail before the charge-sheet is filed, that right does not stand frustrated or extinguished even if the court initially delays in considering it or erroneously refuses it.

Conclusion: Right to Bail Accrued

Applying these principles to Sarpreet Singh’s case, the judge noted that Singh was arrested on June 13, 2018, meaning the 180-day period expired on December 10, 2018. Singh filed his bail application on December 15, 2018. Although the DRI filed its complaint on December 21, 2018, this was after Singh had already filed his application and, more critically, after the High Court later ruled that the extension allowing the December 21 filing was invalid.

The judge also found that the delay in hearing Sarpreet Singh’s and other co-accused’s bail applications (which were not pressed for hearing until the High Court’s order) was bona fide, as their fate hinged on the High Court’s decision.

Concluding that the “indefeasible right accrued in favour of the accused/applicant for getting statutory bail is not extinguished,” Special Judge Mungale allowed the bail application.

Bail Conditions

Sarpreet Singh was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹1,00,000/- and a surety of the like amount. The court imposed several strict conditions, including:

• Reporting to the Intelligence Officer (DRI) on the last Monday of each month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the final disposal of the case.
• Maintaining a diary of his reporting presence and producing it for court examination.
• Not leaving India without prior court permission.
• Producing his passport in court if he possesses one.
• Submitting his photograph and documentary proof of residential address before release.
• Not tampering with prosecution evidence.

This ruling underscored the judiciary’s commitment to protecting an accused’s statutory right to bail in cases where investigating agencies fail to meet mandatory deadlines, even amidst complex legal challenges and a seemingly delayed charge-sheet filing.