2011 (2) TMI 1218 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court overturns extension order for charge sheet filing under NDPS Act, stressing fair hearing.

The High Court of Bombay set aside the order granting an extension of time for filing the charge sheet under the NDPS Act, 1985, as the applicant was not ... Opportunity of being heard before granting extension under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act - setting aside order granting extension of time and remand for fresh adjudication - fresh hearing by Special Judge notwithstanding subsequent filing of charge-sheet - power to grant bail if extension order is found patently illegal - interim bail refused; custody to continue pending fresh decisionOpportunity of being heard before granting extension under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act - setting aside order granting extension of time and remand for fresh adjudication - fresh hearing by Special Judge notwithstanding subsequent filing of charge-sheet - power to grant bail if extension order is found patently illegal - Validity of the order dated 1.11.2010 granting 60-day extension to file charge-sheet where the applicant was not given an opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the facts of the present case are substantially identical to those considered in Criminal Application (Bail) No. 263/2010 and proceeded on the same basis. The order dated 1.11.2010 granting extension of time is set aside because the applicant was not heard before the extension was granted. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge to decide the application afresh after producing the applicant, hearing the applicant's contentions and the prosecution, and without being influenced by the earlier order dated 31.12.2010. The remand is directed notwithstanding that the charge-sheet has since been filed. The learned Special Judge is further directed that, if upon fresh consideration the order granting extension is held to be patently illegal, bail shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the learned Special Judge deems fit. The Court also directed expedition, requiring the learned Special Judge to decide the application within two weeks from receipt of this order, keeping all contentions open. [Paras 6, 8, 9]Order dated 1.11.2010 granting extension of time is set aside; matter remitted to the learned Special Judge to decide afresh, and if the extension is found patently illegal the Special Judge shall grant bail on appropriate terms.Interim bail refused; custody to continue pending fresh decision - custody to continue until Special Judge passes order - Whether the applicant should be released on interim bail until the Special Judge decides the remanded application - HELD THAT: - On the applicant's prayer for interim bail until the Special Judge decides the application, the Court considered the facts and circumstances and declined to grant interim bail. The applicant, who has been in custody since 9.1.2010, was ordered to be produced before the learned Special Judge on the date fixed for hearing, but to continue in custody until the Special Judge passes the fresh order in accordance with the directions given. [Paras 9, 10]Prayer for interim bail is rejected; the applicant shall remain in custody until the Special Judge disposes of the remanded application.Final Conclusion: The order granting 60 days' extension dated 1.11.2010 is set aside for want of hearing; the matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge for fresh hearing and decision within two weeks, with liberty to grant bail if the extension is found patently illegal. Interim bail is refused and the applicant remains in custody pending that decision. Issues:- Extension of time to file charge sheet without giving an opportunity to be heard to the applicant- Legality of the order granting extension of time- Bail application based on the grounds of not being heard before granting extension of time- Similarity of facts with another case leading to setting aside of the order granting extension of timeExtension of Time to File Charge Sheet:The judgment deals with the extension of time sought by the respondent to file a charge sheet under the NDPS Act, 1985. The respondent requested two extensions beyond the stipulated period, which were granted. The applicant subsequently filed a bail application, arguing that they were not heard before the extension of time was granted. The court noted that the applicant's contention was valid as per Section 36(A)(4) of the Act, and the order granting extension was set aside.Legality of the Order Granting Extension:The applicant raised concerns about the legality of the order granting the extension of time to file the charge sheet. The court found merit in the argument and set aside the order, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to be heard before such extensions are granted, as mandated by the law.Bail Application Grounds:The applicant's bail application was based on the premise that they were not given a chance to present their case before the extension of time for filing the charge sheet was approved. The court, in line with a similar case, directed the Special Judge to reconsider the application, ensuring that the applicant is heard before a decision is made on the bail plea.Similarity of Facts with Another Case:The judgment draws parallels between the present case and a previous one, where the extension of time was set aside due to the applicant not being heard before the grant. The court decided to dispose of the present application in a similar manner, emphasizing the importance of following due process and granting an opportunity to be heard before extending the time for filing a charge sheet.In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay set aside the order granting extension of time, directing the Special Judge to reconsider the bail application in light of the findings from a similar case. The court stressed the need for due process and timely decision-making, ensuring that the applicant's rights are upheld.