Two Accused In 530-Kg Ganja Case Get Default Bail As Madras HC Sets Aside Extension For Lack Of Investigation Progress Report And Reasons

The petitioners, arrayed as A1 and A2, were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10 March 2026 in an NDPS case arising from the alleged seizure of 530 kg of ganja.

The prosecution did not file the final report within 180 days and applied under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act for an extension, citing the transfer of the former Investigating Officer and the need to investigate in other States.

The Special Court granted the extension on 3 September 2026.

The petitioners’ default-bail application was returned on the ground that the extension had already been granted; they then challenged that order before the High Court

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

In *Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau*, (2009) 17 SCC 631, the Supreme Court emphasised that these statutory requirements are mandatory.

The Court also referred to the accused’s Article 21 interest in speedy investigation and trial.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, and the petitioners’ default-bail claim was referred to under Section 187(3) of the BNSS.

The prosecution’s stated reasons—the former Investigating Officer’s repatriation and the need for investigation in other States—did not, in the Court’s view, satisfy Section 36A(4).

The prosecution had not adequately demonstrated the investigation’s progress or established specific and justifiable reasons requiring the petitioners’ continued detention beyond 180 days.

Because the statutory preconditions for an extension were not met, the Special Court’s order could not stand.

Conditions included reporting to the respondent twice daily at 10:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., not absconding, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The judgment identifies the challenged application as Crl.M.P.No.5072 of 2026 in its opening and earlier discussion, but as Crl.M.P.No.2075 of 2026 in the operative paragraph.