Statutory bail under the NDPS regime turned on a reasoned extension request; bare reliance on pending forensic report was insufficient.

Statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 36-A(4) NDPS Act was held available where the prosecution's application to extend time for filing the challan did not show independent application of mind. The only reason given was non-receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory report, without explaining why that circumstance justified further time or why the challan could not otherwise be filed. Because the extension request was treated as inadequately reasoned, the statutory period was not validly extended. The petitioner was therefore held entitled to bail and the bail application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the ground that the application for extension of time to file the challan was not supported by proper application of mind.

Analysis: The petitioner's custody continued beyond the statutory period, but the prosecution had moved an application for extension of time before the petitioner applied for bail. The decisive question was whether that application disclosed a real and reasoned consideration by the Public Prosecutor. The only ground stated was non-receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory report, without explaining why that circumstance justified further time or why the challan could not otherwise be filed. On that footing, the application was treated as one lacking independent application of mind and was held to be insufficient for valid extension of the statutory period.

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

---