Section 36A(4) NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Provide Specific Reasons For Continued Detention Of Accused To Seek Extension Of Time: Madras High Court

"The respondent must satisfy the requirements as stated in the statute... indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days." Madras High Court, in a ruling dated September 9, 2026, held that an application for extension of time to complete investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is legally unsustainable if it fails to provide specific justifications for the continued detention of the accused.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that the requirement to provide reasons for further incarceration is a mandatory statutory safeguard, not a mere procedural formality.

The petitioner, arrayed as the second accused in a case involving 5.970 Kgs of Amphetamine, was arrested on July 28, 2024. As the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) failed to file a final report within the mandatory 180-day period, the petitioner moved for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Trial Court dismissed the bail plea, relying on an order that granted the prosecution a three-month extension to complete the investigation.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the prosecution’s application for extension of time under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act meets the legal threshold when it outlines progress in the investigation but remains silent on the necessity of the accused's continued detention. The court also examined the interplay between the extension of the investigation period and the accused's right to seek default bail.

Strict Statutory Compliance Required

The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 36A(4) is explicit in its requirements. The Public Prosecutor’s report must not only detail the progress of the investigation but must also explicitly indicate the "specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days." Relying on the Supreme Court’s dictum in Sanjay Kumar Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, NCB, the Bench held that the absence of such specific reasons vitiates the order granting extension.

Prosecution’s Failure To Justify Detention

While the respondent argued that the forensic analysis of seized mobile phones necessitated more time, the Court found this insufficient to justify keeping the accused in custody. The Bench noted that although the prosecution provided valid reasons for the delay in the investigation itself, it failed to provide any "single specific reason" to justify why the petitioner's continued incarceration was essential to that investigative process.

"The respondent while seeking extension of time to complete the investigation, must satisfy the requirements as stated in the statute."

Twin Conditions Under Section 37 Satisfied

The Court further observed that the petitioner had successfully met the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, noting that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty and was unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. The Court ruled that since the prosecution failed to meet the statutory threshold for extension of time under Section 36A(4), the petitioner’s right to default bail was erroneously denied by the lower court.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Principal Special Judge, Chennai, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions, including the execution of a bond, the provision of two blood-related sureties, and a daily reporting requirement before the trial court for a period of 30 days.

Date of Decision: 09 September 2026