Default bail in NDPS cases survives expiry of the investigation period unless the statute clearly excludes it.

Default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains available in NDPS prosecutions unless the NDPS Act expressly or by necessary implication excludes it. After expiry of the 180-day investigation period, and in the absence of any application to extend custody, the statutory right to release on bail crystallises. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not by itself displace that entitlement. The Court also affirmed that subordinate courts must follow binding Supreme Court precedent when deciding bail. The petitioners were therefore released on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and whether the limitations on bail under Section 37 of that Act excluded such entitlement.

Analysis: The period of 180 days from the date of arrest had expired, and no application had been made to extend the period of custody. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that Section 167(2) of the Code remains applicable to NDPS cases and that exclusion of the proviso to Section 167(2) requires an express provision or necessary implication, which is absent in the NDPS Act. The Court also held that subordinate courts must follow binding precedent and cannot disregard the law declared by the Supreme Court while dealing with bail.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to be released on bail, and the application was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS prosecutions, the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies unless the NDPS Act expressly or by necessary implication excludes it, and the bail limitations in Section 37 do not by themselves take away default bail after expiry of the statutory investigation period.

---