Recent Topic

10/recent/ticker-posts

About Me

Extending Investigation Period Without Notice to Accused Violates Article 21; Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case

 

Extending Investigation Period Without Notice to Accused Violates Article 21; Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case

The Delhi High Court recently granted default bail to an accused in a narcotics case, holding that extending the investigation period without issuing any notice to the accused violates their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The prisoner had been in custody for a prolonged period after being charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). While the statute permits extension of the statutory 90-day investigation period, the Court emphasised that such extension cannot be mechanically granted without providing the accused an opportunity to make submissions or respond to notices, especially where the accused is in custody and directly affected by the continued investigation.

In this matter, the trial court extended the investigation period beyond 90 days without any notice to the accused and without affording them an opportunity to be heard. The High Court noted that the purpose of the statutory provision is to balance the investigatory needs of law enforcement with the constitutional rights of the accused, who cannot be left in custody indefinitely without charge or completion of investigation. It observed that due process requires that before any extension is recorded, the investigating agency must serve notice on the accused informing them of the intention to seek an extension and allow them a reasonable chance to respond. Only after considering any submissions from the accused should the court decide on the extension application. By bypassing this fundamental requirement, the trial court had effectively permitted a continued deprivation of liberty without due procedural safeguards.

The High Court underscored that Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, which includes the right not to be deprived of liberty except according to procedure established by law. It held that a mechanical or procedural extension of investigation without notice violated this constitutional guarantee. The bench pointed out that prolonged custody without the accused being afforded an opportunity to participate in the extension process causes serious prejudice. Particularly in NDPS cases, where the statute itself is stringent and custodial requirements are exacting, courts must be vigilant to ensure procedural fairness and constitutional compliance.

In granting default bail, the Court noted that the accused had already been in custody for a significant period. Since the investigation was not completed within the extended statutory period due to the procedural lapse, the accused became entitled to default bail as per the statutory scheme. The High Court explained that once the statutory investigation period — including any lawfully granted extension — expires without completion of investigation, the accused acquires a statutory right to be released on bail provided they meet other bail conditions. In the present case, because no valid extension was recorded in compliance with due process, the original 90-day period stood expired, thereby entitling the accused to default bail.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory powers to extend investigation periods are not unfettered and must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional rights. Investigating agencies and courts are obligated to ensure that accused persons do not languish in custody due to procedural oversight or non-compliance with fair hearing principles. The High Court’s order serves as a reminder that adherence to procedural safeguards is essential in criminal jurisprudence, especially in penal statutes with severe consequences like the NDPS Act.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the accused’s release on default bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds. The ruling reinforces that Article 21 protections cannot be circumvented by administrative or judicial lapses and that compliance with notice and hearing requirements is indispensable when extending investigation periods affecting personal liberty.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community

Post a Comment

0 Comments

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();