The Court of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bengaluru, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, allowed the statutory bail petition filed by B. Thyagaraju alias Thyaga alias Tej (Accused No. 2) under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner had been detained in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 14/2022 registered by the Bangalore Railway Police Station for offences involving commercial quantities of contraband punishable under Sections 20(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Background and Allegations of the Prosecution
The criminal law was set in motion by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Bengaluru Cantonment Railway Police Station. On February 24, 2022, at around 5:45 PM, the complainant officer and station staff were conducting routine patrolling aboard a train travelling from Bangarpet to Bengaluru to monitor illicit drug transportation.
Upon disembarking at Whitefield Railway Station, the team observed a passenger sitting on a platform bench carrying two bags. Suspicious of his movement, the police interrogated the individual, who disclosed that his bags contained ganja procured from Andhra Pradesh intended for delivery to Accused No. 2, who was waiting nearby. Sensing police presence, Accused No. 2 attempted to flee the scene but was intercepted and apprehended alongside the primary suspect.
A search of the luggage resulted in the recovery and seizure of 20 kilograms and 500 grams of ganja. The entire quantum of contraband and the accompanying vehicle were seized under a detailed spot mahazar. Following the seizure, the suspects were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on February 25, 2022, whereupon they were remanded to judicial custody.
Submissions by the Petitioner and Prosecution
Advocate Sri J.V.S., appearing for petitioner B. Thyagaraju, submitted before the Special Court that the petitioner had been in continuous judicial custody for over 180 days without the investigating agency filing a charge sheet or final report. Counsel argued that under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., read with the NDPS Act, the maximum permissible detention period for commercial quantity offences without a charge sheet is 180 days. Upon the expiration of this statutory period, the petitioner acquired an indefeasible right to default bail. The petitioner affirmed that he was a permanent resident of Bengaluru and willing to offer suitable sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, submitting that the final charge sheet could not be submitted within the statutory timeline due to the non-receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) expert report. The prosecution further contended that it had filed an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking an extension of time to complete the investigation and file the final report. The State expressed apprehension that if released, the petitioner might resume drug trafficking, abscond, or tamper with prosecution evidence.
Legal Analysis and Precedents on Statutory Bail
The Special Court framed three principal points for consideration: whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.; whether the prosecution’s delayed application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act deserved consideration; and what final order should be passed.
Examining the case timeline, the Court observed that the petitioner was arrested and remanded on February 25, 2022. The 180-day statutory period for completing investigation expired without the police submitting a final report or seeking a timely extension. The Court noted that the prosecution’s application under Section 36A(4) seeking an extension of time was filed on September 2, 2022—after the petitioner had already exercised his right and filed the application for statutory bail.
Addressing the legal effect of belated extension requests, the Special Judge placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in S. Kasi v. State through the Inspector of Police (2020 SCC OnLine SC 529). In that decision, the Apex Court affirmed that the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. safeguard the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court emphasized that default bail is an indefeasible constitutional right that cannot be defeated, frustrated, or circumvented by the prosecution on procedural pretexts or delayed extension applications filed after the statutory timeline has elapsed.
Applying this binding authority, the Special Court held that the prosecution cannot defeat the accrued right of default bail by citing delays in obtaining an FSL report. The Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to move an extension application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act prior to the expiry of the initial 180-day mandate. Consequently, the belated application filed by the State was rejected, and Point No. 1 was answered in the affirmative.
Final Order and Conditions Imposed
The Special Court allowed Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No. 8528/2022 and ordered the release of petitioner B. Thyagaraju on statutory default bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
- The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer for any further investigation.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required for investigative purposes.
- The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court without permission.
- Any breach of these conditions by the accused shall entitle the court or prosecution to initiate proceedings for cancellation of bail.