Amit Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another) under Section

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. None appears for the opposite party even in the revised call. Heard Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records. The bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Amit Singh, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. VIII/35/DZU of 2024, under Sections 8, 22, 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station NCB, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The default bail application of the applicant under Section 187 (3) of BNSS in the Court below was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated

13.5.2025. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is incarcerated in jail consequent to alleged recovery effected by the NCB on 25.10.2024 at about 22:00 hours from a site i.e. J-36, Site V, UPSIDC Kasna Industrial Area, Gautam Budh Nagar wherefrom the applicant and one Naveen were found present and 95.501 Kg. of Methamphetamine @ Ice (prohibited contraband) was seized. The applicant is stated to have confessed that he had supplied 25 Kg. of 2 BAIL No. 18678 of 2025 Methamphetamine @ Ice to one Amrish Puri, a resident of Delhi. The applicant is also stated to have disclosed the names of co-accused Ravindra Param, Gustavo (Mexican Meth Trafficker). It is further submitted that the applicant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, on 27.10.2024 and police remand was granted till 30.10.2024. Thereafter, the applicant was brought before the learned Trial Court for judicial remand on 2.11.2024 which was granted initially up to 14.112024 and thereafter, was being extended from time to time. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, which relates to the offences triable by Special Courts. He submits that the Special Court empowered to try the cases have powers akin to a Magistrate under Section 187 of BNSS (167 Cr.P.C.), which includes the power to release an accused on default bail on the expiry of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be. Section 36A of the NDPS Act also provides that in respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offence involving commercial quantity, the period of 90 days mentioned in Section 187 of BNSS shall be construed as reference to 180 days. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel in furtherance of his submissions contends that 180 days in respect of the applicant expired on 23.4.2025. Before the expiry of the said 180 days i.e. on 15.4.2025 an application was moved by the investigating officer for extending the period of 180 days to 1 year in exercise of powers under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act. The said application came to be allowed mechanically by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.4.2025. The order dated 19.4.2025 passed by the Trial Court came to be challenged by the applicant and one another co-accused in Crl. Misc. Application No. 18181 of 2025 (Amit Singh and another versus State of U.P. and another) under Section 528 BNSS before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2025 set aside the order dated 19.4.2025 and allowed the misc. application at the same time granted liberty to the opposite party No. 2 therein i.e. N.C.B. to prefer fresh application, if required, which was directed to be considered by the Court concerned after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the co-accused in compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 36A 3 BAIL No. 18678 of 2025 (4) of the NDPS Act. It is next contended by Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant applied for default bail before the Trial Court, but the same was rejected vide order dated 13.5.2025. It has been argued that admittedly the period of 180 days expired on 23.4.2025. An extension of further 60 days was granted by the Trial Court under the order dated

19.4.2025 which order has been set aside by this Court. The charge sheet having not been filed within the 180 days, the applicant stood entitled to default bail under Section 187 (3) BNSS. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, however, apprises the Court that the charge sheet was filed subsequently on 19.6.2025 beyond the period of 180 days and the N.C.B. did not prefer any extension after the order dated 26.8.2025 passed by this Court setting aside the order dated 19.4.2025. It is argued that the detention of the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The charge sheet filed beyond the period of 180 days is illegal and the applicant cannot be prosecuted pursuant thereto. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record. The present bail plea is being pressed on the ground of default bail on the failure of the N.C.B. to file charge sheet within 180 days. Admittedly, the 180 days period expired on 23.4.2025 . Admittedly, prior to the expiry of 180 days, extension was granted for a period of 60 days vide order dated

19.4.2025 on the application moved by the N.C.B.. Admittedly, the charge sheet was filed well within the extended period of 60 days. However, the order was subsequently set aside by this Court vide order dated 26.8.2025. The certified copy of the order dated 26.8.2025 passed on by learned counsel for the applicant and taken on record reveals that the factum that the charge sheet had been filed during the pendency of the proceedings assailing the order dated 19.4.2025 in Misc. Application No. 18181 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS was not apprised to the Court. In the opinion of the Court, the order dated 26.8.2025 would not help the applicant and no fault can be found in the order of the Trial Court 4 BAIL No. 18678 of 2025 rejecting the default bail vide order dated 13.5.2025 as the statutory period provided under Section 187 BNSS stood extended for a further period of 60 days. The illegality of the charge sheet cannot be questioned in the present proceedings. Considering all the above, particularly the quantity of the contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant, period of incarceration, nature of accusation, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness, no case for default bail as pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant is made out. The bail application is accordingly, rejected. October 29, 2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. None appears for the opposite party even in the revised call. Heard Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records. The bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Amit Singh, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. VIII/35/DZU of 2024, under Sections 8, 22, 29 of NDPS Act, Police Station NCB, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The default bail application of the applicant under Section 187 (3) of BNSS in the Court below was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated

13.5.2025. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is incarcerated in jail consequent to alleged recovery effected by the NCB on 25.10.2024 at about 22:00 hours from a site i.e. J-36, Site V, UPSIDC Kasna Industrial Area, Gautam Budh Nagar wherefrom the applicant and one Naveen were found present and 95.501 Kg. of Methamphetamine @ Ice (prohibited contraband) was seized. The applicant is stated to have confessed that he had supplied 25 Kg. of 2 BAIL No. 18678 of 2025 Methamphetamine @ Ice to one Amrish Puri, a resident of Delhi. The applicant is also stated to have disclosed the names of co-accused Ravindra Param, Gustavo (Mexican Meth Trafficker). It is further submitted that the applicant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, on 27.10.2024 and police remand was granted till 30.10.2024. Thereafter, the applicant was brought before the learned Trial Court for judicial remand on 2.11.2024 which was granted initially up to 14.112024 and thereafter, was being extended from time to time. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, which relates to the offences triable by Special Courts. He submits that the Special Court empowered to try the cases have powers akin to a Magistrate under Section 187 of BNSS (167 Cr.P.C.), which includes the power to release an accused on default bail on the expiry of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be. Section 36A of the NDPS Act also provides that in respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offence involving commercial quantity, the period of 90 days mentioned in Section 187 of BNSS shall be construed as reference to 180 days. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel in furtherance of his submissions contends that 180 days in respect of the applicant expired on 23.4.2025. Before the expiry of the said 180 days i.e. on 15.4.2025 an application was moved by the investigating officer for extending the period of 180 days to 1 year in exercise of powers under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act. The said application came to be allowed mechanically by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.4.2025. The order dated 19.4.2025 passed by the Trial Court came to be challenged by the applicant and one another co-accused in Crl. Misc. Application No. 18181 of 2025 (Amit Singh and another versus State of U.P. and another) under Section 528 BNSS before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 26.8.2025 set aside the order dated 19.4.2025 and allowed the misc. application at the same time granted liberty to the opposite party No. 2 therein i.e. N.C.B. to prefer fresh application, if required, which was directed to be considered by the Court concerned after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the co-accused in compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 36A 3 BAIL No. 18678 of 2025 (4) of the NDPS Act. It is next contended by Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant applied for default bail before the Trial Court, but the same was rejected vide order dated 13.5.2025. It has been argued that admittedly the period of 180 days expired on 23.4.2025. An extension of further 60 days was granted by the Trial Court under the order dated

19.4.2025 which order has been set aside by this Court. The charge sheet having not been filed within the 180 days, the applicant stood entitled to default bail under Section 187 (3) BNSS. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, however, apprises the Court that the charge sheet was filed subsequently on 19.6.2025 beyond the period of 180 days and the N.C.B. did not prefer any extension after the order dated 26.8.2025 passed by this Court setting aside the order dated 19.4.2025. It is argued that the detention of the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The charge sheet filed beyond the period of 180 days is illegal and the applicant cannot be prosecuted pursuant thereto. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record. The present bail plea is being pressed on the ground of default bail on the failure of the N.C.B. to file charge sheet within 180 days. Admittedly, the 180 days period expired on 23.4.2025 . Admittedly, prior to the expiry of 180 days, extension was granted for a period of 60 days vide order dated

19.4.2025 on the application moved by the N.C.B.. Admittedly, the charge sheet was filed well within the extended period of 60 days. However, the order was subsequently set aside by this Court vide order dated 26.8.2025. The certified copy of the order dated 26.8.2025 passed on by learned counsel for the applicant and taken on record reveals that the factum that the charge sheet had been filed during the pendency of the proceedings assailing the order dated 19.4.2025 in Misc. Application No. 18181 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS was not apprised to the Court. In the opinion of the Court, the order dated 26.8.2025 would not help the applicant and no fault can be found in the order of the Trial Court 4 BAIL No. 18678 of 2025 rejecting the default bail vide order dated 13.5.2025 as the statutory period provided under Section 187 BNSS stood extended for a further period of 60 days. The illegality of the charge sheet cannot be questioned in the present proceedings. Considering all the above, particularly the quantity of the contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant, period of incarceration, nature of accusation, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness, no case for default bail as pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant is made out. The bail application is accordingly, rejected. October 29, 2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)