Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1477 of 2026 (In the matter of an application under Section528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) Pramod Kumar Rana …. Petitioner (s) -versus- State of Orissa …. Opp. Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Anindita Bisoi, Adv. For Opp. Party (s) : Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.06.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present CRLMC arises out of Special Case (NDPS) No. 82 of 2025 pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh, involving alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The facts of the case are as follows: (i) The prosecution case is that on 27.03.2025 at about 4:30 A.M., while the police team was on patrolling/NDPS raid duty near Khajuripada, it received reliable information regarding illegal Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 2 storage and transportation of commercial quantity ganja near village Udamud. Acting on such information, the raiding team allegedly proceeded to the spot with independent witnesses and, at about 5:15 A.M., detected 21 jerry bags containing contraband ganja weighing approximately 826 kg. Five persons allegedly standing near the contraband fled from the spot on seeing the police party, and the source allegedly identified them, including the present petitioner Pramod Kumar Rana. (ii) The petitioner was subsequently arrested in connection with the case after several months from the date of FIR. The petitioner states that he was arrested on 15.10.2025, while the State’s date chart mentions 25.10.2025, though in another portion of the State’s reply also the date 15.10.2025 is referred to. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody and has challenged the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh, whereby extension of one month was granted for completion of investigation beyond the statutory period under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. (iii) Before expiry of the statutory period of 180 days, the Public Prosecutor filed an application on 09.04.2026 under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time for completion of investigation. The grounds stated for seeking extension were that two accused persons, namely Swadhin Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 3 Khatua and Ghana Rana, were yet to be apprehended and financial investigation of the accused persons was still pending. The Investigating Officer had prayed for two months’ extension, but the learned Special Judge granted a limited extension of one month, commencing after completion of the statutory period of 180 days. (iv) The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order dated 09.04.2026 and also seeking release on default/statutory bail. The petitioner’s case is that the extension order is illegal and void, whereas the State’s case is that the extension was granted after service of the petition on the defence counsel, hearing both sides, perusal of the up-to- date case diary, and due consideration of the progress of investigation. The charge-sheet was thereafter submitted on 30.04.2026, which according to the State was within the extended period and therefore no indefeasible right of default bail accrued to the petitioner. II. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner contends that the order dated 09.04.2026 granting extension of time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, because it was allegedly passed on the very same Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 4 day on which the application was filed, without proper notice to the petitioner and without producing him physically or virtually before the Special Court. According to the petitioner, production of the accused and intimation that the extension application is being considered is not an empty formality but a constitutional and statutory safeguard, since acceptance of such extension directly affects the personal liberty of the accused and defeats his right to seek default bail. (ii) The petitioner further contends that the Public Prosecutor’s application was not an independent report as required under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, but was merely a mechanical forwarding or reproduction of the Investigating Officer’s prayer. It is submitted that the Public Prosecutor was required to independently apply his mind to the progress of investigation and give specific reasons justifying further detention of the petitioner beyond 180 days. According to the petitioner, vague reasons such as non-arrest of other accused persons and pendency of financial investigation cannot justify continued detention of an accused who is already in custody, particularly when no specific material is shown as to why further detention of this petitioner was necessary. (iii) The petitioner asserts that the statutory period of 180 days expired without a valid extension and, therefore, an indefeasible right to default/statutory bail accrued in his favour Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 5 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the right to default bail is not merely a procedural benefit but a fundamental right flowing from Article 21, and once such right accrues, it cannot be defeated by a subsequent charge-sheet or by an invalid extension order passed without compliance with mandatory safeguards. (iv) The petitioner also challenges his arrest and continued detention on the ground that written grounds of arrest were not supplied to him, allegedly in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C. He further submits that no contraband was recovered from his person, possession, custody or conscious control; that his name does not appear in the seizure list or immediate witness statements; and that the entire implication is based on hearsay identification by an unnamed and unverified source. On this basis, the petitioner contends that there is no prima facie material connecting him with the alleged seizure and that his continued incarceration amounts to abuse of the process of law. III. SUBMISSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The State contends that the case involves recovery of a huge commercial quantity of ganja, namely 826 kg packed in 21 jerry Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 6 bags, and that the prosecution case discloses illegal storage, possession and transportation of contraband ganja by several accused persons, including the present petitioner. According to the State, the five accused persons fled from the spot after seeing the police party and were identified by the source, and the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose the petitioner’s involvement in the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. (ii) The State denies the petitioner’s allegation that the extension order was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing. It relies on the order of the learned Special Judge itself, which records that the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor was served upon the learned counsel for the accused persons, that the learned defence counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard, and that the defence counsel had also relied upon Lambodar Bag v. State of Orissa. Therefore, according to the State, the petitioner’s plea of absence of notice or denial of opportunity is factually incorrect. (iii) The State submits that the extension was sought before expiry of the statutory period of 180 days and was supported by sufficient reasons, namely that two accused persons were still absconding and financial investigation was pending. It is further contended that the learned Special Judge independently examined the up-to-date case diary, considered Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 7 the progress of investigation, and granted only a limited extension of one month, though the Investigating Officer had prayed for two months. Therefore, according to the State, the order reflects judicial application of mind and compliance with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. (iv) The State further argues that the charge-sheet was submitted on 30.04.2026 within the extended period granted by the competent Court and before any indefeasible right of default bail could accrue to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the legality of arrest cannot properly be adjudicated in a proceeding primarily challenging extension of time under Section 36A(4). On these grounds, the State prays that the CRLMC petition be dismissed as devoid of merit and that the petitioner is not entitled to default bail. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE LOWER COURT RECORD: 5. The Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh made the following observations in the present case: (i) The learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh considered the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time for completion of investigation. The order records that the Public Prosecutor had annexed the prayer of the Investigating Officer and sought two months’ additional time. The lower court also recorded that the petition had been served upon the learned Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 8 counsel for the accused persons and that both the learned defence counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Thus, on the face of the order, the lower court proceeded on the basis that the defence had notice and an opportunity to object to the extension application. (ii) The lower court took note of the statutory scheme under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, observing that in cases involving commercial quantity, the statutory period for completion of investigation is 180 days and failure to complete investigation within that period may create a right in favour of the accused in custody to seek release on bail. At the same time, the court also noted that the proviso to Section 36A(4) empowers the Special Court to extend the period of detention up to one year where the Public Prosecutor’s report indicates progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days. (iii) On facts, the court below found that the investigation was not yet complete because financial investigation of the accused persons was pending and two accused persons, namely Swadhin Khatua and Ghana Rana, were yet to be apprehended. The court also noted from the up-to-date case diary that the Investigating Officer had repeatedly raided the houses of the absconding accused persons. On that basis, the learned Special Judge accepted that further investigation was required to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 9 ascertain the complicity of the absconding accused persons and to complete the financial investigation. (iv) The defence had relied upon Lambodar Bag v. State of Orissa1 to argue that extension without hearing the accused would be improper. The court below distinguished that decision on the ground that, in the present case, the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor had been served upon the learned defence counsel before completion of the statutory period and the defence counsel had argued the matter. Therefore, the lower court held that the said case was not applicable to the present facts and granted extension of one month only, instead of the two months sought by the Investigating Officer, with the extension to commence after completion of 180 days. V. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX: 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Section 167(2) CrPC (with its proviso) gives an accused in custody an indefeasible right to default bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period. Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act provides that, in cases involving commercial quantities, the Special Court may extend the 180-day period of investigation if the Public Prosecutor files a report indicating progress and reasons for further detention. 1 BLAPL No. 7337 of 2017 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 10 8. The judicial precedents have repeatedly stressed that this statutory safeguard is integral to Article 21. In other words, once 180 days expire, an accused who applies for bail is entitled to be released unless the accused consents or a valid extension is granted. In M. Ravindran v. IO, DRI2, the Court held that an accused is deemed to have exercised his right to default bail under Section 167(2) the moment he files the application for bail. The prosecution cannot defeat this right by belatedly filing the charge-sheet while the bail application is pending. The Court held as follows: “The crucial question that arises for consideration, therefore, is what is the true meaning of the expression 'if already not availed of'? Does it mean that an accused files an application for bail and offers his willingness for being released on bail or does it mean that a bail order must be passed, the accused must furnish the bail and get him released on bail? In our considered opinion it would be more in consonance with the legislative mandate to hold that an accused must be held to have availed of his indefeasible right, the moment he files an application for being released on bail and offers to abide by the terms and conditions of bail. To interpret the expression “availed of” to mean actually being released on bail after furnishing the necessary bail required would cause great injustice to the accused and would defeat the very purpose of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and further would make an illegal custody to be legal, inasmuch as after the expiry of the stipulated period the Magistrate had no further jurisdiction to remand and such custody of the accused is without any valid order of remand. 2 (2021) 2 SCC 485 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 11 … If the expression “availed of” is interpreted to mean that the accused must factually be released on bail, then in a given case where the Magistrate illegally refuses to pass an order notwithstanding the maximum period stipulated in Section 167 had expired, and yet no challan had been filed then the accused could only move to the higher forum and while the matter remains pending in the higher forum for consideration, if the prosecution files a charge-sheet then also the so-called right accruing to the accused because of inaction on the part of the investigating agency would get frustrated. Since the legislature has given its mandate it would be the bounden duty of the court to enforce the same and it would not be in the interest of justice to negate the same by interpreting the expression “if not availed of” in a manner which is capable of being abused by the prosecution.” 9. However, the NDPS Act permits extension beyond 180 days upon strict compliance. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra3, a Constitution Bench has held that no extension of custody may be granted without giving notice to the accused so that he may oppose it. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State4 explained that the required “notice” means production of the accused before the court, not necessarily a written memo, at the time the extension application is considered. In short, the accused must be aware of and have an opportunity to contest the extension petition. 3 (1994) 4 SCC 602 4 (1994) 5 SCC 410 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 12 10. In the present case, the Special Judge’s order expressly records that the Public Prosecutor’s petition was served on defense counsel before the 180-day period elapsed and that learned counsel for the accused was heard on 9.4.2026. Defence counsel did not deny receiving notice of the application or the opportunity to oppose it. On these facts, the requirement of notice (through counsel) was satisfied. 11. As Sanjay Dutt (supra) holds, formal written notice is not mandatory so long as the accused has an opportunity to be heard. The learned court then applied its mind to the merits: noting that two co-accused remained at large and financial investigation was incomplete, it granted a limited extension of one month (instead of the two months prayed for). Nothing on the face of the order suggests it was granted mechanically or without judicial scrutiny. In Hitendra Thakur (supra) itself the Court cautioned that while notice is essential, unjustified refusals to grant bail on default (or extensions without cause) would violate the accused’s liberty. Here, the judge explicitly considered the updated case diary and restricted the extension to one month only. In these circumstances, we find no procedural infirmity in the extension order of 9.4.2026. The Public Prosecutor’s report, though based on the Investigating Officer’s inputs, was formally submitted and countersigned; the trial court’s endorsement shows it reviewed the progress and reasons. This Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 13 satisfies the requirement that the Public Prosecutor apply independent mind when seeking any detention beyond 180 days. 12. Because the extension was thus valid, the charge-sheet filed on 30.4.2026 fell within the lawful extended period. Once the challan is filed in time, Section 167(2) cannot be invoked thereafter. It is well established that the indefeasible right to default bail is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan and does not survive on the challan being filed in the court. Here, the one-month extension ran from 13.4.2026 to 13.5.2026, and the charge-sheet was filed on 30.4.2026. Hence no default bail crystallized. In M. Ravindran (supra) this Court held that once the charge-sheet is filed within the extended time, the accused’s right to bail under the earlier clause ceases. 13. This Court notes the petitioner’s contention regarding the legality of arrest and supply of grounds. Article 22(1) mandates that the person arrested must be informed of grounds of arrest as soon as may be. Courts have emphasized that arrests must not be routine and must be justified by exigent circumstances. Failure to communicate grounds can vitiate custody. However, these issues are collateral to the present petition which solely challenges the extension of time. Determination of any violation of Section 50 CrPC or Article 22 would require separate proceedings. In view of our conclusion on the extension, we need not rule on the legality of the arrest at this stage. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:26:36 Signature Not Verified Page 14 14. In sum, the learned Special Judge correctly recorded that the prosecution’s extension application was served on the defense, heard before expiry of 180 days, and granted only a limited extension based on legitimate investigation needs. The petitioner’s statutory right to default bail did not accrue because investigation was granted extra time and the charge-sheet was filed within that time. Under Hitendra Thakur (supra) and Sanjay Dutt (supra), the procedure for extension has been observed. Nor has any other fundamental right been breached such as to dislodge the extension. 15. The CRLMC is dismissed. The extension order of 09.04.2026 is upheld, and the petitioner is not entitled to default bail. Any liberty claim arising from the arrest itself is left open in accordance with law. 16. The interim order staying the proceedings, if any, is vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th June, 2026/ CUTTACK