Default Bail under Section 187(3) BNSS Cannot Be Defeated by Subsequent Extension of Time under Section 36-A(4) NDPS Act | Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Sonu Kumar Saroj v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 17 July 2026

Citation: CRR-501-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once an accused acquires the indefeasible statutory right to default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, such right cannot be defeated by a subsequent order granting extension of time for completion of investigation under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. An application for extension of time must be decided before the accused invokes the right to default bail, and the Special Court cannot retrospectively extinguish the accrued statutory right by passing a later order extending the investigation period.

Summary: The petitioner, a registered pharmacist, was arrested in an FIR registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act along with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Before expiry of the statutory investigation period, the prosecution sought extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act on the ground that the Forensic Science Laboratory report had not yet been received. However, no order was passed on the application before the statutory period expired.

After expiry of the prescribed period, the petitioner invoked his right to statutory/default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS. Instead of deciding the application immediately, the Special Court heard both applications together and subsequently allowed the prosecution’s request for extension while simultaneously dismissing the petitioner’s application for default bail.

Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court reiterated that the right to default bail is an indefeasible statutory right which crystallises immediately upon expiry of the prescribed investigation period if no valid extension order exists. Relying upon Union of India v. Nirala Yadav, Sanjay Dutt v. State, Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra and several Punjab and Haryana High Court precedents, the Court held that the relevant date is the date on which the accused invokes the statutory right. Since no judicial order extending the investigation period existed on that date, the subsequent extension order could not retrospectively nullify the accrued right.

The Court further observed that mere pendency of an application for extension does not deprive an accused of default bail. Extension under Section 36-A(4) NDPS Act is an exceptional power requiring strict compliance with statutory conditions. Mere non-receipt of the FSL report is not an automatic ground for extension, particularly where the investigating agency fails to demonstrate due diligence or exceptional circumstances. The Public Prosecutor’s report must disclose the progress of investigation and specific reasons justifying continued detention, requirements which were not satisfactorily fulfilled in the present case. Consequently, the petitioner was held entitled to statutory/default bail.

Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed. The order of the Special Court rejecting the petitioner’s application for statutory/default bail and granting extension of time for investigation was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released on statutory/default bail upon furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.