NDPS detention extension safeguards were not met, so continued custody was invalid and regular bail was granted.

Detention beyond the prescribed investigative period under the NDPS Act could continue only where the statutory requirements for extension were satisfied, including progress of investigation, compelling reasons for further custody, and notice to the accused. On the facts, the maximum period had expired, notice was not shown to have been served, and the extension was sought only because the chemical examiner's report had not been received; the extension request and order were treated as routine and mechanical non-compliance with statutory safeguards. Bail was therefore granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail on account of lapse of the permissible period of detention and non-compliance with the requirements for extension of time for completion of investigation under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the proviso relating to bail during investigation and on the special regime governing extension of detention under the NDPS Act. The Court held that detention beyond the prescribed period could continue only if the statutory conditions for extension were satisfied, including a report showing progress of investigation, compelling reasons for further detention, and notice to the accused. On the facts, the maximum period had already expired, no notice was shown to have been served, and the request for extension rested only on non-receipt of the chemical examiner's report. The extension application and the order granting further time were found to have been passed in a routine and mechanical manner, amounting to non-compliance with the statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail and the petition was allowed.

---