After 180 Days, P&H HC Grants NDPS Accused Default Bail, Setting Aside Extension Granted Without Notice Or A Reasoned Prosecutor’s Report

The petitioner was arrested on 2 July 2025 in an NDPS case involving an alleged recovery of 260 grams of heroin.

The prosecution did not file the challan within 180 days, which expired on 1 January 2026. On 2 January 2026, the petitioner applied for default bail, and the investigating officer also sought an extension of time to complete the investigation, citing the pending FSL report. The Special Court granted an extension on 3 January 2026 and dismissed the bail application, noting that the prosecution’s extension application had been filed before the petitioner’s application. The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the Public Prosecutor’s report lacked independent application of mind and that he had not been given notice or an opportunity to be heard on the extension application

Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act permits the Special Court, on a report by the Public Prosecutor, to extend the investigation period for qualifying offences beyond 180 days, up to one year; the report must indicate the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for continued detention. Read with Section 187(3) of the BNSS, the statutory default-bail right arises when the prescribed investigation period expires without a valid extension and the accused applies for bail.

Relying on Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 AIR (SC) 4641, the Court stated that the accused must be produced before the Special Court, informed that extension is under consideration, and given an opportunity to raise objections; the Public Prosecutor must independently apply their mind, and the Court must assess the report. The Court also relied on Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 942, for the requirement that an extension report indicate investigative progress, specify compelling reasons for further detention, and be considered after notice to the accused.

The Court found that the Public Prosecutor’s report neither identified the progress of the investigation nor stated specific or compelling reasons for detaining the petitioner beyond 180 days; it merely accompanied the investigating officer’s request. The Court further found that the petitioner was not given notice and that neither his presence nor that of his counsel was recorded when the extension was granted.

Those omissions were inconsistent with the safeguards identified in Jigar and Sanjay Kumar Kedia. As the extension was therefore invalid, the 180-day period expired on 1 January 2026 without a lawful extension. The petitioner’s application on 2 January 2026 consequently matured into an indefeasible right to default bail; the earlier filing time of the prosecution’s extension application did not cure the defects in the extension process.