Vinoth Kumar vs State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012520422026}
Vinoth Kumar
S/o Balakrishnan,
No.27/2, Muthamil Nagar,
Kallikuppam, Ambattur,
Chennai.
...Petitioner
Vs
State Rep by
The Deputy Superintendent
NIBCID, Chennai.
Crime No. 11 of 2026
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and set aside
the order in Crl.M.P.No. 5559 of 2026, dated on 09.09.2026 on the file of the
Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Karthikeyan
For Mr. P.Veeranarayanan
For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under the
EC and NDPS Acts, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 5559 of 2026, whereby the time
for filing the final report in Crime No. 11 of 2026 was extended.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, acting upon secret information,
the respondent conducted a search on 17.03.2026 and allegedly found the
petitioner and the other accused persons in possession of 220 kg of ganja in the
car in which they were travelling. Accordingly, the respondent registered an
FIR in Crime No.11 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c)
read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”). After
registration of the FIR, all the accused persons were arrested and remanded to
judicial custody on 17.03.2026. Thereafter, the respondent failed to file the
final report within the statutory period of 180 days prescribed under Section
36A(4) of the NDPS Act.
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition seeking default
bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. However, the said petition was
returned on 12.10.2026, on the ground that the prosecution had already filed
Crl.M.P. No. 5559 of 2026 seeking extension of time for completing the
investigation and filing the final report under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act,
and that the learned Trial Court had, by order dated 09.09.2026, extended the
period for completion of the investigation. Aggrieved by the said order of
extension, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Original Petition
contending that the prosecution had failed to disclose any valid or sufficient
grounds warranting extension of the statutory period for completing the
investigation and filing the final report, thereby affecting the petitioner's right
to seek default bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed before this Court.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner is arrayed as
the first accused (A1) in Crime No. 11 of 2026 and was arrested and remanded
to judicial custody on 17.03.2026. Therefore, the respondent was required to
complete the investigation and file the final report within the statutory period
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
of 180 days, as prescribed under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. However,
since the respondent could not complete the investigation within the stipulated
period, a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 5559 of 2026 was filed under Section 36A(4)
of the NDPS Act, seeking extension of time. The grounds set out by the
prosecution in the said petition were that, pursuant to the confession statements
of A1 and A2, one Bharathkumar, stated to be their associate, was secured on
22.07.2026. It was further stated that, based on the confession statements of A1
to A3, another person, namely, Joshwa, was yet to be apprehended for the
purpose of completing the investigation. On these grounds, the prosecution
sought further time to complete the investigation and file the final report. The
learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the said petition, allowed the request
and extended the period for completion of the investigation.
6. However, the respondent has failed to satisfy the twin
requirements contemplated under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, namely,
furnishing a report indicating the progress of the investigation and specifying
the particular reasons necessitating the further detention of the accused beyond
the statutory period of 180 days. The prosecution has not adequately
demonstrated the progress made in the investigation or disclosed any specific
and justifiable grounds warranting an extension of the period of detention.
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to place sufficient
and valid reasons before the learned Trial Court to justify the extension of the
statutory period.
7. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the provision contained in
Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which reads as follows:
“Section 36A(4) -- In respect of persons accused of an
offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section
27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the
references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days",
where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one
hundred and eighty days":
Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the
investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty
days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one
year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the
progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the
detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred
and eighty days.”
Thus, it is clear that the learned Trial Court is empowered to extend the period
for completion of the investigation up to a maximum of one year, subject to the
fulfilment of the statutory requirements under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
Act. Such an extension can be granted only on the basis of a report submitted
by the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and
specifying the particular reasons necessitating the further detention of the
accused beyond the initial period of 180 days. In the absence of a report
satisfying the aforesaid mandatory requirements, any extension of the period of
detention would be contrary to the statutory mandate.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Sanjay Kumar Kedia v.
Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau , reported in (2009) 17 SCC
631 , has emphasised the mandatory nature of the requirements prescribed
under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Further, an unjustified extension of
detention would also have implications for the accused's right to speedy
investigation and trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Trial Courts and the learned Public Prosecutors dealing with cases under the
NDPS Act must be apprised of the scope and mandatory requirements
governing an application filed under Section 36A(4) of the said Act. Unless the
Public Prosecutor submits a report clearly indicating the progress of the
investigation and setting out specific and compelling reasons necessitating the
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
further detention of the accused beyond the statutory period of 180 days, the
learned Trial Court ought not to have granted an extension of time for
completion of the investigation and filing of the final report. In the present
case, the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 36A(4) of the
NDPS Act have not been duly complied with. Consequently, the impugned
order granting extension of time cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be
set aside.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the
learned Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, in
Crl.M.P.No.5559 of 2026, is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be released
on bail forthwith, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two blood relative sureties for a like sum
each, to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge under EC &
NDPS Act, Chennai, and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression
in the surety bond and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar
card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily twice at
10.30 a.m. & 5.30 p.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during
investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned
Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the
petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and
the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala
[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered
under Section 229A IPC.
11. The Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the
Principal District Judges in the State of Tamil Nadu, who shall, in turn,
circulate the same among the Judicial Officers dealing with cases under the
NDPS Act in their respective districts, with a direction to ensure strict
compliance with the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 36A(4) of
the NDPS Act.
12. With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed.
29.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
To
1. The Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent,
NIBCID, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
5. The Registrar (Judicial)
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Crl.O.P.No.30153 of 2026
29.10.2026
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )