Granting Extension For Filling Challan In Absence Of Accused Violates Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that granting extension of time to file a chargesheet under the NDPS Act without producing the accused or giving them an opportunity of hearing is a gross illegality, as it deprives the accused of their indefeasible right to default bail and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court accordingly quashed an order passed by the Special Court, Gurdaspur, which had extended the time for filing the challan and rejected the accused persons' plea for default bail.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal said, "...there remains no doubt that the accused must be present either physically or virtually when the Court considers a request for extension of time to file the challan. Since, extension of time directly affects the accused's right to default bail, an order passed in his absence is a serious violation of his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

The petitioners were arrested on 07.05.2025 in FIR under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Special Operation Cell, Amritsar. They were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on 08.05.2025 and remained in custody thereafter.

As the prosecution failed to file the challan within the statutory period of 180 days, the petitioners applied for default bail under Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, the Special Court dismissed the application vide order dated 04.11.2025, holding that the prosecution had already obtained a one-month extension to file the challan.

Counsel for petitioners Samay Sandhawalia contended that although the prosecution had moved an application for extension on 30.10.2025, which was allowed on 31.10.2025, no notice was served upon the accused, nor were they produced before the Court when the extension was granted.

It was argued that the extension directly curtailed the accused's statutory right to default bail and could not have been granted without hearing them, rendering the impugned order illegal.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the offence was serious in nature and that the prosecution had sought extension before the expiry of the 180-day period, which was duly granted by the trial court. Hence, no illegality was committed.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410, reiterating that the right to default bail arises upon expiry of the statutory period unless a valid extension is granted.

The Court further placed reliance on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Jigar v. State of Gujarat (2023) 6 SCC 484, which categorically held that, "The presence of the accused, either physically or virtually, is a mandatory safeguard while considering an application for extension of time, as such extension deprives the accused of their indefeasible right to default bail."

The bench noted that  the order granting extension, was completely silent regarding the presence of the petitioners or any objections raised by them. This omission, the Court held, was not a mere procedural lapse but a serious breach of the accused's right to personal liberty.

Holding that the extension of time was granted in violation of settled law and constitutional safeguards, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 qua the petitioners.

The petitioners were directed to be released on default bail upon furnishing bail bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The Court clarified that its observations shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

Title: PARAS THAKUR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to read order