Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:s. 167(2) r/w s. 36A of Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 – Default bail/ Compulsive bail – Applicationfor – After completion of 180 days from the remand date – Bailgranted by trial court – High Court set aside the bail order on theground that since additional complaint was filed before disposal ofthe bail application, bail could not have been granted – Appeal toSupreme Court – Held: Section 167(2) was enacted with theobjectives of ensuring fair trial, expeditions investigation and trialand reasonable procedure prior to depriving any person of hispersonal liberty, which is intrinsically linked to Art. 21 of theConstitution – Section 167(2) has to be interpreted keeping in mindthe aforesaid objectives – If the accused applies for bail u/s. 167(2)r/w. s. 36 A (4) NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extendedperiod, Court has to release him on bail forthwith – Prosecutioncannot defeat enforcement of such right of accused by subsequentlyfiling a final report, additional complaint or report seeking extentionto time – However, actual release on bail is contingent upon thedirections passed by the competent court granting bail – In thepresent case, accused was deemed to have availed the right to bail,the moment he filed the application seeking bail and offered to abideby the terms and conditions of the bail order – He was entitled to bereleased on bail notwithstanding the subsequent additionalcomplaint – Constitution of India – Art. 21.Interpretation of Statutes:Interpretation of penal statutes – Held: In case of anyambiguity in the construction of penal statute, courts must favourthe interpretation which leans towards protecting the right of theaccused – Such principle is applicable not only in the case ofsubstantive penal statute, but also in cases of procedures providingfor curtailment of liberty of the accused.