The Calcutta High Court in the case In Re Maharaj Singh & Anr. v. Customs observed and has held that once a charge-sheet is filed in a NDPS case, the order extending detention of the accused beyond 180 days no longer survives. Thus, the court stated that the litigant cannot be permitted to assail the said order of extension of detention at a time when it is no longer in existence.
The division bench comprising of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi in the case observed that the petitioner in the case did not assail the order extending the period of detention which being prior to the completion of investigation. Therefore, upon the conclusion of investigation and submission of complaint, the impugned order extending the detention which being beyond 180 days no longer survives after the charge sheet has been filed. Thus, the court cannot permit the litigant to assail an order at the time when the same is no longer existed.
In the present case, the petitioner was arrested, wherein it is alleged that while transporting narcotics i.e. 14970 bottles of phensedyl syrup containing codeine phosphate in 42 HDPE bags and also 25 cartons in a truck.
The petitioner in the case approached the High Court, wherein seeking statutory bail on the ground that the report seeking extension of the period of detention in terms of Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The court in the case observed that the manner and circumstances in which the goods were being transported prima facie show an organised crime racket was involved interstate transportation of drugs. Thus, the petitioner was also interrogated upon their arrest made and the role of co-accused, the co-accused was arrested. Therefore, on the 17th day of their detention, the report of investigating officer wherein seeking extension of detention in terms of proviso to Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act was being served upon them. The court allowed the application filed by its order dated July 08, 2022.
Further, it has also been noted by the court that the report seeking extension clearly spelled out the role of the petitioners and the necessity for extending the period of detention which beyond 180 days, it has also been highlighted that the petitioners hail from different states and there being the possibility of their abscondence and tampering evidence.
The court in the case also relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that when an order of extension had not been assailed and had merged into a subsequent order, the court cannot assail the earlier order of extension.