Madras HC Upholds Default Bail Denial in 950g Meth Case, Says Missing CCTV and Phone Records Don’t Invalidate Timely Police Report

The petitioner was arrested on 13 April 2025 in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of 950 grams of methamphetamine and was remanded to judicial custody on 14 April 2025.

The NCB filed its report on 3 October 2025, before the statutory period expired on 10 October 2025; cognizance was taken and the case was numbered C.C. No. 258 of 2025.

The petitioner sought default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, arguing that the report was incomplete because CCTV footage from a toll plaza and CDR/CAF records for a mobile phone had not been obtained or filed.

The Special Court dismissed the application, prompting this revision.

Section 187(3) BNSS provides for default bail where the investigation report is not filed within the prescribed period.

Sections 193(3) and 193(6) BNSS require the prescribed particulars in the report and, in a positive report, the documents and witness statements on which the prosecution proposes to rely; Section 190 BNSS permits forwarding a report where the officer considers there to be sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion.

Section 193(9) permits further investigation and a further report.

The Court relied on Shaurya Sunil Singh v. CBI, 2026 INSC 666, and the authorities discussed there, including CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan and CBI v. R.S. Pai, for the principle that a timely report is not invalidated merely because further investigation or additional documents remain outstanding.

It also relied on Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC 1082, for the principle that an accused has no right to dictate the manner or method of investigation.

The report was filed on 3 October 2025, before the statutory period expired on 10 October 2025, and the Court considered it a positive report containing sufficient material to enable cognizance.

The outstanding CCTV and CDR/CAF materials were evidence the petitioner considered necessary to challenge the prosecution case; their absence did not mean the report lacked the statutory particulars or was incapable of supporting cognizance.

Because BNSS permits further investigation and supplementary reports, the report did not have to embody every item of evidence or a fully completed investigation to defeat a default-bail claim.

The petitioner could not compel the investigating agency to collect particular materials by asserting that their absence made the report incomplete.

It dismissed the revision and upheld the Special Court’s order, while directing the Special Court to dispose of C.C. No. 258 of 2025 within two months of receiving the order.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.