Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted default bail to an accused in an NDPS case after setting aside a trial court order that extended the time for completing the investigation and a later order declining statutory bail. The Court held that the investigation period had been extended without notice to the accused and without producing him, physically or through video conferencing, when the request for additional time was considered, affecting personal liberty under Article 21. The prosecution arises from the Narcotics Control Bureau’s allegations of recovery of codeine phosphate tablets from an export parcel and further recoveries during the investigation. The accused was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 35,000 with one surety, subject to standard conditions.

The petitioner, Jaivardhan Dhawan, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging two orders passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), New Delhi. The first order dated 31.10.2025 granted an extension of 120 days to the Narcotics Control Bureau for completion of investigation and filing of the complaint. The second order dated 13.11.2025 rejected the petitioner’s application seeking default bail under Section 187 BNSS read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

Also Read: Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC In Prevention Of Corruption Act Cases; Supreme Court

The prosecution case arose from a seizure on 09.01.2025 of 3.6 kg of Codeine Phosphate tablets from a parcel booked at DHL Express, New Delhi. During subsequent investigation, the petitioner and co-accused were intercepted in May 2025, and recoveries were allegedly affected from different locations pursuant to disclosure statements. The petitioner was arrested on 15.05.2025 and remained in judicial custody.

It was contended by the petitioner that the statutory period of 180 days for completion of investigation expired on 11.11.2025 and no complaint was filed within that period. Although an application seeking extension of time was allowed on 31.10.2025, the petitioner asserted that he was neither produced nor informed when the request for extension was considered, thereby violating mandatory procedural safeguards. The respondent opposed the petition, asserting due compliance with statutory requirements and disputing the claim of absence of notice.

The Court examined the scheme of Section 187 BNSS and Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and noted that the proviso to Section 36A(4) permits extension of the investigation period only on a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention. The Court observed that the concept of default bail flows from personal liberty protected under Article 21 and is triggered upon expiry of the statutory period without a valid extension.

Relying on precedents, the Court recorded that “the right to default bail arises only when the chargesheet/complaint is not filed within the statutory period and no valid extension has been granted.” The Court further noted that the presence of the accused at the time of consideration of an extension application is a mandatory safeguard, as “the logical and legal consequence of the grant of extension of time is the deprivation of the indefeasible right available to the accused to claim a default bail.”

Referring to the decision in Jigar v. State of Gujarat, the Court stated that “the failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity.” It was further recorded that such omission amounts to “gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.”

On examining the extension order dated 31.10.2025, the Court found that it contained no reference to the petitioner’s presence or any submission on his behalf. The order merely recorded that the accused were in judicial custody. The Court observed that “had the petitioner been present, the order would have reflected that the accused was produced through judicial custody.” The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that production for remand on the same day satisfied the requirement, noting that production for remand and consideration of extension were distinct proceedings.

The Court concluded that the petitioner was neither produced nor informed when the application for extension was considered, rendering the extension order unsustainable. Consequently, there was no valid extension beyond 11.11.2025, and the petitioner’s right to default bail stood crystallized.

The Court recorded that “the Order dated 31.10.2025 was passed by the Ld. ASJ in contravention of the settled legal position, as mandatory notice was not served on the accused when the Application for extension was considered,” and accordingly held that “the Order dated 31.10.2025 is set aside.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Hospital & Gynaecologist Over Cotton Mop Left Inside Woman's Abdomen During C-Section

“Consequently, the Order dated 13.11.2025, by which the Petitioner’s Application for default Bail was dismissed also cannot stand,” and declared that “the Petitioner is held entitled to default Bail.”

The petitioner be released on default/statutory bail upon furnishing “a personal bond of Rs.35,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing,” shall provide and keep operational his mobile number, “shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate or intimidate the witnesses,” and shall intimate the Trial Court and the Investigating Officer in case of any change of residential address.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhaid Parikh, Mr. Kartik Rathi, Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Ms. Sakshi Mendiratta and Ms. Kashish Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Khatri, Standing Senior Counsel, with Ms. Shelly Dixit and Ms. Tracy Sebastian, Advocates.

Case Title: Jaivardhan Dhawan v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11203
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3778/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna