The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that an accused person under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is entitled to regular bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory 180-day period, absent a valid extension order by the Special Court. This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguard embedded in Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and clarifies that failure to comply with this timeline automatically vests the accused with an indefeasible right to bail.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to the accused under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, holding that the failure of the prosecution to file a charge sheet within 180 days of arrest, and the absence of any valid extension order from the Special Court, entitles the accused to bail as a matter of right. The Court imposed stringent conditions including weekly reporting, territorial restriction, and non-interference with witnesses.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Bibin Nath T, was arrested on 12 July 2025 in connection with Crime No. 156 of 2025 registered at Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupati District. He was accused of possessing 70.560 kilograms of ganja, classified as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The offences alleged are under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest.
As of the date of the petition, the statutory period of 180 days for completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet had expired. No application seeking extension of judicial custody beyond this period had been filed by the Public Prosecutor before the Special Court, as required under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution did not demonstrate any progress report or specific reasons justifying continued detention beyond the statutory limit.
The petitioner, through his counsel, sought regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024, arguing that the failure to file the charge sheet within the stipulated time rendered his continued detention unlawful. The State, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not contest the factual assertion that no extension application had been filed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused under the NDPS Act has an indefeasible right to regular bail if the charge sheet is not filed within 180 days of arrest, and the Special Court has not granted an extension under Section 36A(4) with a proper report indicating progress and reasons for detention.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act creates a mandatory statutory right to bail if the investigation is not completed within 180 days. He emphasized that the provision is designed to prevent indefinite detention without trial and that the absence of a report from the Public Prosecutor seeking extension renders the detention illegal. He cited judicial precedents from other High Courts affirming that the right to bail under this provision is automatic and not subject to judicial discretion once the time limit lapses.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factual position that no extension application had been filed. The State did not advance any legal argument to contest the petitioner’s entitlement to bail under Section 36A(4). The absence of a formal opposition effectively conceded the legal position advanced by the petitioner.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language and intent of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, which states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the accused shall be released on bail unless the Special Court, upon a report by the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention, extends the period up to one year. The Court noted that the provision is not merely directory but mandatory in nature, as confirmed by multiple precedents including the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
"The statutory right to bail under Section 36A(4) is not contingent on the accused’s conduct or the gravity of the offence. It arises automatically upon the expiry of 180 days without a valid extension order."
The Court held that the failure of the Public Prosecutor to file any report seeking extension deprived the Special Court of the jurisdiction to continue detention beyond the statutory period. The absence of such a report meant the legal basis for continued custody ceased to exist. The Court further observed that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, and procedural safeguards under special statutes like the NDPS Act must be strictly enforced to prevent arbitrary detention.
The Court rejected any notion that the seriousness of the offence or the quantity of narcotics could override the statutory right to bail. It emphasized that the legislature, by enacting Section 36A(4), had already balanced the need for effective investigation with the right to personal liberty.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a binding precedent in Andhra Pradesh and carries persuasive weight across other jurisdictions. Practitioners must now treat the 180-day timeline under Section 36A(4) as an absolute deadline. If the charge sheet is not filed within this period and no extension order is obtained, bail must be granted as a matter of right. Defence counsel should routinely verify the date of arrest and the status of the charge sheet in NDPS cases to file bail applications promptly.
Prosecutors must ensure that extension applications under Section 36A(4) are filed well before the 180-day mark, accompanied by a detailed report on investigation progress. Failure to do so will result in automatic release, regardless of the nature of the offence. This ruling also reinforces the principle that procedural compliance in special statutes is not optional - it is the foundation of lawful detention.
The Court’s imposition of stringent bail conditions - weekly reporting, territorial restriction, and non-interference with witnesses - provides a model for balancing liberty with investigative needs in high-stakes narcotics cases. Future bail applications in similar contexts should incorporate such conditions to satisfy judicial concerns about flight risk or tampering.
