Retrospective extension of investigation time cannot defeat accrued default bail rights under Section 167(2) CrPC.

An order extending the period for investigation or custody cannot operate retrospectively to defeat an accused's accrued right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. Where the statutory period expires without a valid extension granted before expiry, a later order extending time cannot cure the lapse or nullify the right to seek bail. On that principle, the accused was held entitled to default bail and the refusal of bail by the court below could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the order extending the period for investigation under Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was passed after expiry of the statutory period and operated retrospectively.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the expiry of the 180-day period for filing the charge-sheet and the fact that the prosecution's application for extension was decided after that period had already run out. The Court noted that, although the prosecution had moved for extension before the accused's bail application and before expiry of time, the controlling principle was that extension of custody and investigation could not be granted with retrospective effect. Once the statutory period expired without a valid prior extension, the accused's right to seek default bail could not be defeated by an order passed later and backdated in effect.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to default bail, and the rejection of bail by the court below could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: An order extending the period for investigation or custody cannot be granted retrospectively so as to defeat the accused's accrued right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---