Default bail under the NDPS Act was denied where extension orders were tested on material then available and new objections were not entertained.

A challenge to extension orders for filing the charge-sheet and refusal of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act failed where the Chemical Analyst's report contention had not been raised before the Special Court and could not ordinarily be entertained for the first time in writ or supervisory jurisdiction. The Court held that later filing of the charge-sheet did not invalidate earlier extension orders, because their validity had to be tested on the material available when made. Precedent cited by the petitioner was distinguished on facts, as no material showed that the Public Prosecutor had failed to apply an independent mind while seeking extension, and the refusal of bail was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders extending time for filing the charge-sheet and refusing bail were liable to be set aside, and whether the accused was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The challenge based on the alleged non-availability of the Chemical Analyst's report was not entertained because that specific contention had not been urged before the Special Court. A ground not raised before the court of first instance cannot ordinarily be examined for the first time in writ or supervisory jurisdiction. The Court also held that the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet could not be used to invalidate earlier orders extending time, because such extensions must be judged on the material then available. The reliance on precedent was distinguished on facts, as no material was shown to establish that the Public Prosecutor had failed to apply his mind while seeking extension.

Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge failed, and the refusal to grant bail was upheld.

---