In Absence of Special Court’s Extension, Accused Has Indefeasible Right to Bail After 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Section 36A(4) NDPS Act

“Severity of Offence Cannot Override Statutory Safeguards — Liberty Prevails When Procedure is Ignored,” Andhra Pradesh High Court, through Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, delivered a significant ruling = under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that a person accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, acquires an “indefeasible right to bail” under Section 36A(4) once 180 days of custody elapse without an extension being sought or granted by the Special Court. The Court observed that procedural compliance with statutory timelines is non-negotiable, even in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.

The case involved allegations of possession of 61 kilograms of ganja, wherein the petitioner—Chintala Satyanarayana (Accused No.3)—had already spent 183 days in judicial custody. The Court found that the Public Prosecutor had not filed any application seeking extension of the custody period, and the Special Court had not passed any order extending remand beyond the statutory 180-day period. Therefore, it held that the accused was entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, irrespective of the gravity of the offence.

“Right to Bail Becomes Enforceable Upon Expiry of 180 Days — Not Optional, Not Discretionary, But a Statutory Command”: High Court Applies Section 36A(4) NDPS Act in Full Force

The case arose from Crime No.41 of 2025 registered at Narsipatnam Rural Police Station, Anakapalli District, where the petitioner was booked under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, for allegedly dealing in commercial quantity of ganja. He approached the High Court under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, the new procedural code replacing Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail on statutory grounds.

The petitioner had been in custody since 18 April 2025, and by the time of the bail hearing, 183 days had passed. The prosecution admitted that no extension was ever sought under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. That provision allows detention beyond 180 days only if the Public Prosecutor moves an application showing progress of investigation and reasons for detention, and the Special Court grants an extension.

Justice Rao noted with emphasis:

“In the absence of a valid extension of the investigation period by the Special Court under Section 36A(4), the accused acquires an indefeasible right to statutory bail upon expiry of 180 days.”

This right, the Court clarified, is not based on judicial discretion but is statutorily guaranteed. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Union of India v. Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190, and Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410, where it was held that “default bail” is not a charity but a right, once the procedural deadlines lapse without extension.

“Continued Incarceration Without Proper Legal Basis Is a Breach of Personal Liberty”: Court Says Investigation Against Accused Is Substantially Complete

While the prosecution contended that the accused was involved in a serious narcotics offence, the Court reminded that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed merely on the ground of the seriousness of charges, especially when the investigating agency fails to follow the due process mandated by law.

The Court observed that the investigation, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, was substantially completed, and seven witnesses, all of them officials, had already been examined. The Court further recorded:

“The petitioner has a fixed place of residence, is unlikely to flee from the clutches of law, and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.”

Importantly, the Court held that the right to be released on bail under Section 36A(4) does not evaporate because of the gravity of the alleged offence. It crystallizes once the statutory period of 180 days expires without any valid extension order from the Special Court.

“This Court Is Bound to Uphold the Mandate of Law, Not the Convenience of the Prosecution”: Bail Granted With Safeguards to Balance Liberty and Justice

Granting the petitioner statutory bail, the Court laid down several strict conditions to ensure that the accused remains within the reach of the investigation process and does not abuse the liberty granted. However, Justice Rao stressed that:

“The severity of the allegations cannot justify indefinite incarceration, especially when the prosecution fails to act within the framework of the law. Bail is a rule, and jail is the exception — more so when liberty is backed by a statutory mandate.”

The bail was granted subject to execution of personal bond, regular appearance before the Station House Officer every Saturday, and compliance with directives not to leave the State or interfere with witnesses. The Court balanced public interest with individual liberty, reaffirming that failure of the State to act in accordance with law cannot be a ground for depriving a citizen of his freedom.

NDPS Detentions Must Comply Strictly With Statutory Procedure — Failure to Seek Extension Leads to Automatic Right to Bail

This decision is a strong reaffirmation of the principle that statutory deadlines under the NDPS Act are binding, and the Courts cannot condone the failure of the prosecution to seek timely extension of custody. The “indefeasible right to bail” under Section 36A(4) is triggered by mere inaction of the prosecution, and is not subject to judicial discretion once the statutory timeline lapses.

By upholding the petitioner’s right to be released after 183 days in custody without a charge sheet or extension, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has sent a clear message: legal procedure is not a formality — it is the essence of justice.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025