Scope Of Extension Petition And Statutory Bail Petition Different, Should Not Be Taken Up Together By The Special Court: Madras High Court

“The Special Courts must get rid of the practice of dealing with the extension petition and the statutory bail petition together. The scope of both these petitions are very different and it must be keep in mind by the Special Courts,” the court said.

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above direction while hearing a challenge against the return of the statutory bail application on the ground that the chargesheet had already been filed. During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General informed the court that in almost all the Special Courts, both the petitions were taken up together and a common order was passed.

The APP informed the court that in many cases, the extension petition filed within time under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act was numbered later and taken up along with the statutory bail petitions filed by the accused, and hence when the extension petitions were taken up, the statutory period would have come to an end. He thus sought some directions that could be issued to the special court to follow a uniform procedure.

The court noted that a full bench of the Calcutta High Court had, in a similar issue, issued certain guidelines which could be followed in letter and spirit by the courts in Tamil Nadu also.

The Calcutta High Court had held that if an accused fails to apply for statutory bail either in written or even oral form, his right does not crystallize and the Court is empowered to remand him to custody under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 36A(4) of NDPS Act beyond 180 days till he avails of such right. The court had also observed that an order extending the period of detention under proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act on a report filed by the prosecutor beyond 180 days but before the accused availing his right to statutory bail operates from the date of filing of the application and cannot be said to have retrospective operation. The court stated that the total period of detention under the above provisions shall not exceed one year in whole.

The Calcutta High Court had also ruled that prayer for an extension of the period of detention must be decided at the earliest without undue delay preferably within 7 days of making such application. The court further highlighted that prayer for an extension of the period of detention must be based on a report of the Public Prosecutor which must record the progress of the investigation and spell out specific reasons to justify further detention beyond 180 days pending investigation.

Justice Venkatesh thus directed the copy of the order to be circulated to all Principle Judges across Tamil Nadu to be followed scrupulously.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms.P.Kritika Kamal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 63

Case Title: Varun and another v State

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.901 of 2024