ORDER : MITALI THAKURIA, J. Heard Mr. S. D. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in NDPS Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2025-26 whereby the extension order has been passed illegally for completion of investigation extending the period for another 3 (three) months. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel that the present petitioner got arrested in connection with the above referred case on 01.05.2025 and prior to completion of 6 (six) months of the statutory period i.e., 180 days, one petition was filed through the Special Public Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer praying for extending the period for another 3 (three) months, i.e., 90 days under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Considering the prayer made by the Investigating Officer, the extension order was passed by the learned Special Judge on 27.10.2025 i.e., on 175 days of his period of custody. 4. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel further submitted that without assigning any reason, the order of extension has been passed by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 27.10.2025 without even issuing notice to the petitioner and without applying its judicial mind, the order has been passed by the learned Special Judge. 5. Further, it is seen that at the time of furnishing the application for prayer for extension, there is no specific reason also assigned and there is no application of mind even by the Special PP while prayer was made for extension of time for investigation. 6. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1994 4 SCC 602 , wherein, it is observed that notice should be issued to the accused while extending the period of investigation. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel submitted that though the said case was pertaining to TADA Act, but same principle may be applicable in the present case also wherein it is seen that no notice was served on the accused while granting the prayer for extension made by the I.O., through the Special PP. 7. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel submitted that though the said case was pertaining to TADA Act, but same principle may be applicable in the present case also wherein it is seen that no notice was served on the accused while granting the prayer for extension made by the I.O., through the Special PP. 7. He also cited another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 (6) SCC 484 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also expressed the view that while furnishing the application for extension of time, the Investigating Officer as well as Public Prosecutor should apply his mind and the progress of investigation also should be intimated in the said report by the Public Prosecutor before praying for extension of time and it is not merely a formality but a very vital report for which the Public Prosecutor should play an active role while submitting the application for extension of period of investigation. 8. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel accordingly submitted that in the present case, the order prima facie reveals that there is no application of mind while submitting the prayer for extension of time for investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, nor there is any application of judicial mind by the learned Special Judge while passing the order for extension on 175 day of his period of custody. Accordingly, he submitted that interference of this Court is very essential and prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in NDPS Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2025-26. 9. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs submitted in this regard that for extension it is specifically mentioned in para-4 of the said application as to why the Investigating Officer is unable to complete the investigation within the period of 6 (six) months and prayed for extension of period of investigation. In the said application it has also been mentioned that the report from the District Transport Officer was also awaited for the seized vehicle from where the contraband was recovered during the investigation. Apart from that the call details were also awaited during investigation and for which the period for extension of investigation was prayed by the Investigating Officer through the Public Prosecutor. Apart from that the call details were also awaited during investigation and for which the period for extension of investigation was prayed by the Investigating Officer through the Public Prosecutor. Thus, it cannot be stated that while filing the application, the Special Public Prosecutor has not applied his mind, rather, it is specifically mentioned about the urgency or need for extension of period of investigation. 10. He further submitted that as per statute there is no such requirement of furnishing the notice to the accused persons, but from the application itself, it is seen that the copy of the petition was served to the engaged counsel for the accused persons, who duly received the application filed by the Public Prosecutor for extension of time. However, even after receiving the said application, the counsel for the accused remained absent and the accused was not represented by him at the time of hearing of the said application. 11. Mr. Keyal, further submitted that the charge sheet is also submitted within the extended period of time, i.e., within 90 days from the date of extension of time and the petitioner is also not entitled for the benefit of default bail in such a situation. 12. In that context, Mr. Keyal also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 66 wherein in para-15 of the said judgment it has been expressed that ”right of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not only a statutory right but is a right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an indefeasible right, nonetheless it is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan or the charge-sheet, and does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan file, if already not availed of”. 13. In the said case it is also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the event charge sheet having been filed against the accused within the prescribed time limit, wherein cognizance having been taken by the Court, the respondents cannot claim the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 14. Mr. 13. In the said case it is also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the event charge sheet having been filed against the accused within the prescribed time limit, wherein cognizance having been taken by the Court, the respondents cannot claim the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 14. Mr. Keyal, accordingly submitted that in the instant case also the charge sheet is filed within the extended period of investigation i.e., within the 90 days period of extended period and the cognizance has already been taken accordingly and hence, the accused also cannot claim his indefeasible right of bail under Section 167 CrPC. Mr. Keyal accordingly submitted that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Special Judge in passing the order dated 27.10.2025, extending the period of investigation for another period of 90 days, i.e., 3 (three) months and hence, the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record and the annexures appended thereto, including the impugned order and the petition praying for extension of time. 16. Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act read as under:- “36A(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days": Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within  thesaid period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days.” 17. Thus, there is a specific provision under the NDPS Act for extension of time beyond 180 days i.e., 6 (six) months of period if the investigation is not completed within the statutory limit of 180 days. 18. Thus, there is a specific provision under the NDPS Act for extension of time beyond 180 days i.e., 6 (six) months of period if the investigation is not completed within the statutory limit of 180 days. 18. In the instant case also, it is seen that prior to the completion of 180, one petition has been filed by the Investigating Officer through the Special Public Prosecutor for extension of time for another 3 (three) months for completion of the investigation. 19. On perusal of the said petition filed by the Special Public Prosecutor it is seen that in para 4 and 5 of the said petition had brought sufficient reasons to make prayer for extension of time for investigation. The para 4 and 5 of the said application reads as under:-- “4. That, the statutory period of submission of the charge sheet fall on 27.10.2025, however, the investigation officer of the instant case has submitted a report dated 17.010.2025, that he is unable to complete the investigation within that period for reasons of carrying out further investigation in the instant case and has urged to submit an application for extension of the period of investigation in the instant case. The District Transport Officer’s report regarding the ownership and registration particulars of the seized vehicle is still awaited. The said report is crucial for establishing the chain of ownership and liability in the matter and also the other person(s) involvement in instant case. Such investigation is a necessary part of investigation as such people are always involve in such illegal activities. 5. That, Some Subscriber details record and call details record of accused persons and other accomplishes are being investigated to establish complicity in the case and also get other person(s) involvement in the instant case. That, the Final Chargesheet would not be possible to be submitted within the stiupulated time period of 180 days (completes on 27 th October, 2025) due to the want of pending DTO report and the Subscriber Details Record, Call Details Record of the some accused and accomplishers are still under investigation and as such the I.O. may be granted/allowed an additional 90 (ninety) days for submission of the final chargesheet.” 20. Thus, it is seen that sufficient reasons has been brought in the petition and it cannot be said that the learned Special Public Prosecutor has not applied his mind while praying for extension of time on the basis of prayer made by the Investigating Officer. 21. It is a fact that as per statute there is no provision of furnishing any notice to the accused while hearing the prayer for extension of time, but for the natural justice, notice may be provided to the accused petitioner to make any objection in regards to the prayer for extension of time. 22. In the instant case though it is repeatedly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice has been served to the accused petitioner, but from the copy of the petition itself it is seen that the same has been received by the engaged counsel for the accused persons, who appeared on his behalf and also applied for bail. 23. The learned Special Judge while passing the impugned order also clearly observed that inspite of issuance of notice or the copy of the application, none appeared for the accused petitioner at the time of hearing the said petition. Further, from the impugned order also it is seen that the learned Special Judge had made clear observation as to why the extension is required and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the extension was made on 175 day of investigation and the period is extended for further 3 (three) months. Thus, there found no illegality or irregularity while passing the order of investigation by the learned Special Judge. More so, from the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, Customs as well as from the record it is seen that the Final Form/Charge Sheet has also been laid within the extended period of time and there is no lapse on the part of the prosecution in submitting the Charge Sheet within the period of extension. 24. So, considering the above aspects of the case it is seen that the learned Special Judge committed no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, in NDPS Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2025-26 extending the period of investigation and hence, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 25. 25. Accordingly, this criminal petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 26. Return the Trial Court Record forthwith.