Madras HC Grants Default Bail To Two NDPS Accused, Citing Failure To Show Investigation Progress Or Justify Detention Beyond 180 Days

In brief

The question

Whether the extension of the investigation period under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was valid in the absence of a report adequately indicating investigative progress and specific reasons for further detention.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 12 September 2025 extending the investigation period.

It also directed

It directed that the petitioners be released on bail forthwith on separate bonds of ₹25,000 each, with two blood-relative sureties for a like sum each, subject to the stated conditions, including reporting to the respondent police twice daily and not absconding or tampering with evidence or witnesses.

01Facts

The petitioners, arrayed as A1 and A2 in Crime No.185 of 2025, challenged the Principal Special Judge’s order dated 12 September 2025 extending the time for investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners and other accused possessed LSD stamps and Nitravet tablets, and sought an extension on the grounds that the contraband’s source and disputed money transfers required further investigation, persons needed to be examined, and the laboratory report was pending.

pp. 2–4

The petitioners contended that the prosecution had not established grounds for extending the statutory period, thereby affecting their right to seek default bail.

p. 3

The judgment records that they were remanded on 25 March 2025 and that the prosecution had not filed the final report within 180 days.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the extension of the investigation period under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was valid in the absence of a report adequately indicating investigative progress and specific reasons for further detention.

pp. 4–7

ii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief, including release on bail, after the extension order was set aside.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act permits the Special Court to extend the 180-day investigation period, up to one year, for specified offences, including offences involving commercial quantity, only on a Public Prosecutor’s report indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days.

pp. 5–6

The Court relied on Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, (2009) 17 SCC 631, for the mandatory nature of these requirements.

p. 6

The Court noted that unjustified extension of detention implicates the right to speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20 Section 29 Section 25 Section 19 Section 24

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 167

04Reasoning

The prosecution’s stated grounds—further inquiry into the contraband’s source and money transfers, examination of persons, and a pending laboratory report—did not adequately demonstrate the progress of the investigation or specify sufficient reasons for detaining the accused beyond the statutory period.

pp. 4–6

Because the required Public Prosecutor’s report did not satisfy the statutory conditions, the extension was contrary to Section 36A(4) and could not stand.

pp. 6–7