Extending Investigation Period Without Notice To Accused Violates Article 21: Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case

The Delhi High Court has granted default bail to a man in an NDPS case, observing that the time for competition of investigation was extended without giving any notice to him which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the accused must be present either physically or virtually when the Court considers a request for more time to complete the investigation.

The Court said that such a procedure is not a mere formality, but an important safeguard, which allows the accused to know what is happening and to raise objections, if any.

“If not produced or not informed, the procedure becomes unfair to the accused. Since extending time directly affects the accused's right to default bail, an order passed without his presence, cannot be treated as a small or technical mistake. It is a serious violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21,” the Court said.

The Court set aside a trial court order extending the time for investigation and granted default bail to accused- Jaivardhan Dhawan.

He was arrested in May in connection with an alleged interstate narcotics trafficking racket unearthed after the he NCB seized 3.6 kg of Codeine Phosphate tablets from a DHL parcel in January and later recovered multiple consignments from locations in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Haridwar and Dehradun.

It was his case that only 29.89 grams of suspected tablets were allegedly recovered from his residence and that no commercial quantity was seized from his personal possession.

He also contended that the recovery was planted and marred by a 69‑day delay in sampling in violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

He had challenged the order of the trial court extending the time to file the chargesheet by 120 days as well as another order rejecting his application for default bail.

Allowing his plea, Justice Krishna observed that the accused was not present when the Application for extension of investigation period was considered and that no mandatory notice, whether through physical production or virtual appearance, was given to him.

The Court said that such an omission was in clear breach of the settled legal requirement and rendered the extension order “fundamentally flawed.”

“Non presence and no Notice is not a mere procedural irregularity, but is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21…,” the Court said.

It concluded that not following the mandatory step of informing the accused made the extension invalid and directly affected his right to default bail.

The Court said that once there was no valid extension, the accused's right to default bail came into force automatically and thus, he was entitled to claim default bail as a matter of right.

Title: JAIVARDHAN DHAWAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Click here to read order