A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the interplay between default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cancellation of such bail under Section 439(2) CrPC in the context of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case arose from a coordinated investigation by different zonal units of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence involving recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances at different locations but forming part of a single transaction. The accused were granted default bail by the Special Court at Hyderabad on the ground that the complaint was not filed within 180 days. However, it later emerged that a combined complaint encompassing both recoveries had already been filed within the statutory period before the Special Court at Omerga, Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court addressed whether miscommunication or non-disclosure of the filing of a combined complaint could confer an indefeasible right to default bail. The Court reaffirmed that default bail is not an absolute right divorced from factual reality and statutory compliance. Where the complaint is filed within the prescribed period before a competent court having jurisdiction, default bail granted due to an erroneous assumption can be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC.

The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural lapses or administrative miscommunication cannot defeat substantive justice in serious NDPS offences. It also clarifies jurisdictional competence, continuity of offence, and the legal permissibility of filing a consolidated complaint covering multiple recoveries forming part of the same conspiracy.

Keywords:
Default Bail, Section 167(2) CrPC, NDPS Act, Cancellation of Bail, Combined Complaint, Section 439(2) CrPC

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The decision arises from a complex factual matrix involving inter-State transportation of psychotropic substances and coordinated enforcement action under the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act prescribes stringent procedural safeguards and extended timelines for investigation, recognising the gravity of offences involving commercial quantities. Section 36A of the Act modifies the general provisions of the CrPC by extending the period for filing a complaint to 180 days, subject to compliance.

The background of the case reflects the operational realities of specialised agencies like the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, where different zonal units may investigate different facets of the same criminal conspiracy. The issue before the Court was not merely procedural but touched the core of administration of criminal justice, balancing individual liberty against societal interest in controlling narcotic offences.

The grant of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is often described as an indefeasible right. However, the judgment situates this right within the broader statutory framework and clarifies that such right arises only when the investigating agency has actually failed to comply with the prescribed timeline.

The case also revisits the jurisprudence on cancellation of bail, especially when bail is granted on an erroneous premise. By relying on Pandit Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reaffirmed that bail granted under Section 167(2) CrPC can be cancelled when it is found to be illegal or perverse. The background thus sets the stage for reconciling procedural rights with substantive statutory compliance under NDPS law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 11 January 2018, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad intercepted a car at Kamkole Toll Plaza, Telangana. The appellants were travelling in the vehicle. Upon search, concealed cavities were discovered in the boot, from which 45.874 kilograms of Methaqualone, a psychotropic substance of commercial quantity, was recovered. The appellants disclosed that the substance had been loaded at Omerga, Maharashtra and was being transported to Chennai.

The appellants were arrested on 12 January 2018 under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and were remanded to judicial custody by the Special Court at Hyderabad. During the same period, another operation conducted by DRI Bangalore led to recovery of additional narcotic substances from a factory premises at Omerga, Maharashtra. Both recoveries were found to be interconnected and part of a single chain of events.

The appellants continued in custody as the investigation progressed. As the 180-day statutory period approached its end, the appellants moved an application for default bail before the Special Court at Hyderabad. On 12 July 2018, the Court granted bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, proceeding on the assumption that no complaint had been filed within the stipulated time.

However, unbeknownst to the Hyderabad Court, a combined complaint dated 06 July 2018 had already been filed by DRI Bangalore before the Special Court at Omerga under Section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act. The complaint specifically named the appellants as accused and detailed the Hyderabad seizure as part of the same transaction.

Subsequently, upon discovering this fact, DRI Bangalore moved the High Court under Section 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of bail. The High Court allowed the application, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC can be claimed when a combined complaint has been filed within 180 days before a competent court?
ii. Whether bail granted due to non-disclosure or miscommunication can be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC?
iii. Whether two recoveries at different locations constitute distinct offences or a single continuing transaction?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the Special Court at Hyderabad was justified in granting default bail as no complaint was filed before it within 180 days. It was argued that the Hyderabad seizure and the Omerga factory recovery were distinct offences investigated by different DRI units.

It was contended that the appellants had no role in the manufacturing process at Omerga and were merely transporters. The failure of the prosecution to inform the Hyderabad Court about the filing of a complaint elsewhere was argued to be fatal, giving rise to an indefeasible right to bail.

The appellants further argued that cancellation proceedings ought to have been initiated before the same court which granted bail, and not directly before the High Court.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that the entire operation constituted a single conspiracy involving manufacture and transportation of narcotic substances. The combined complaint filed on 06 July 2018 comprehensively covered both recoveries and specifically arraigned the appellants.

It was argued that the appellants were accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the combined complaint and that the statutory requirement under Section 36A NDPS Act had been fully complied with. The grant of default bail was termed erroneous and liable to be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC.

Reliance was placed on Pandit Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 17 SCC 745 to submit that illegal bail orders can be set aside.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the cancellation of bail. The Court found that the combined complaint filed before the Special Court at Omerga was within the statutory period and validly invoked jurisdiction. The failure to bring this fact to the notice of the Hyderabad Court was held to be a procedural lapse that could not confer an unjust advantage on the accused.

The Court observed that the complaint clearly established continuity of the offence from Omerga to Hyderabad. The appellants’ own statements under Section 67 NDPS Act corroborated the prosecution case. The Court emphasised that default bail is not an abstract right but arises only when statutory conditions are actually breached.

The High Court’s exercise of power under Section 439(2) CrPC was upheld as legally sound. However, liberty was reserved to the appellants to apply for regular bail on merits.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The filing of a combined complaint within 180 days before a competent court defeats any claim to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, even if the court granting bail was unaware of such filing due to miscommunication.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that accused persons are not precluded from seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, and such applications must be considered independently on merits.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Default bail under NDPS cases must be tested against actual statutory compliance.
ii. Bail granted on erroneous assumptions is cancellable under Section 439(2) CrPC.
iii. Courts must examine the substance of the transaction rather than fragmented territorial investigations.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment provides crucial clarity on the scope of default bail in NDPS offences involving multi-jurisdictional investigations. It reinforces that procedural technicalities cannot override statutory compliance and public interest in prosecuting serious narcotic crimes. The ruling strengthens prosecutorial coordination while preserving judicial discretion in bail matters.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Pandit Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 17 SCC 745

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985