In a significant judgment reinforcing the personal liberty of citizens, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that extending the time for filing a chargesheet (challan) without the presence of the accused is a "gross illegality." The Court emphasized that such a move directly infringes upon the "indefeasible right" to default bail and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The ruling came from Justice Rupinderjit Chahal, who set aside a lower court order that had granted the police more time to complete its investigation in a drug-related case without informing or producing the accused individuals.

The matter originated from an FIR registered under Sections 22, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at the Special Operation Cell, Amritsar. The petitioners, Paras Thakur and another, were arrested on May 7, 2025.

Under the law, specifically the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which has replaced the CrPC—and the NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to file a challan within 180 days for certain serious offenses. If they fail to do so, the accused becomes entitled to "default bail."

In this instance, the 180-day period was nearing its end. On October 30, 2025, the prosecution moved an application for a one-month extension. The Special Court in Gurdaspur allowed this extension on October 31, 2025. However, the accused were neither produced in court (physically or virtually) nor were they given any notice regarding this application.

When the accused later applied for default bail, the Special Court rejected it, citing the extension already granted to the police. This led the petitioners to approach the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Samay Sandhawalia, argued that the extension was granted in total secrecy. He contended that since an extension of time directly curtails a person’s right to be released on bail, the accused must be given an opportunity to oppose such an extension. By failing to produce the accused, the trial court had acted against the principles of natural justice.

The State, on the other hand, defended the extension by highlighting the seriousness of the NDPS offenses and stating that the application was moved before the statutory period expired.

Justice Chahal, after reviewing the records, noted that the Special Court’s order was "completely silent" regarding the presence of the petitioners.

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions:

Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994): Which established that the right to default bail is a valuable right that accrues the moment the statutory period expires.
Jigar v. State of Gujarat (2023): Where the Apex Court categorically held that the presence of the accused is a mandatory safeguard when considering an extension of time for investigation.

"There remains no doubt that the accused must be present either physically or virtually when the Court considers a request for extension of time to file the challan," the High Court observed.

The Bench further added that an extension directly affects the accused’s right to personal liberty. Therefore, passing such an order in their absence is not just a procedural lapse but a "serious violation" of Article 21.

The High Court quashed the Gurdaspur Special Court’s order that had denied bail and extended the investigation time. The Court ordered that the petitioners be released on default bail immediately, subject to furnishing bail bonds.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to trial courts across the country. It clarifies that while the state has the power to seek more time for complex investigations, this power cannot be exercised at the cost of an individual's constitutional rights. The "right to be heard" is not a mere formality; it is a shield against the arbitrary extension of imprisonment without trial.

Case Title: Paras Thakur and Another v. State of Punjab

Bench: Justice Rupinderjit Chahal