The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, possesses an indefeasible right to regular bail if the investigation is not completed within 180 days and no valid extension is granted under Section 36A(4). The Court granted bail to the petitioner, who had been in judicial custody since July 2025, emphasizing that the State failed to file any report seeking extension beyond the statutory period.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court held that under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, an accused has an indefeasible right to regular bail if the charge sheet is not filed within 180 days and the Public Prosecutor has not submitted a report justifying extended detention. The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, including weekly reporting and territorial restrictions, pending the filing of the charge sheet.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Sandhaka SrINU, was arrested on 18 July 2025 in connection with Crime No. 246/2025 registered at I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. He is accused alongside four others of possessing 46 kilograms of ganja, which qualifies as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The case also invokes Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for conspiracy. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest, with no charge sheet filed as of the date of the hearing.
The investigation exceeded the 180-day statutory limit prescribed under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The State did not file any report before the Magistrate seeking an extension of judicial custody beyond this period. Meanwhile, a coordinate bench of the same High Court had already granted bail to the other four accused in the same case on 16 January 2026, citing similar circumstances. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the absence of a charge sheet, combined with the grant of bail to co-accused and the petitioner’s fixed residence, warranted his release on bail.
The petitioner’s counsel further contended that the State had not complied with the procedural safeguards under Section 36A(4), rendering continued detention unlawful. The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factual timeline but argued that the gravity of the offence and the commercial quantity involved justified continued custody.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused in an NDPS case has an indefeasible right to regular bail under Section 36A(4) when the investigation exceeds 180 days without a valid report from the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of custody. Does the failure to file such a report automatically trigger the right to bail, irrespective of the nature of the offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, which mandates 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, extends custody up to one year. The counsel emphasized that no such report had been filed in this case, making continued detention unlawful. He cited the coordinate bench’s decision granting bail to co-accused as evidence of identical circumstances and argued that denying bail to the petitioner would violate the principle of equality under Article 14. He further noted the petitioner’s fixed abode and lack of prior criminal record as mitigating factors.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Public Prosecutor acknowledged that no extension report had been filed but argued that the seriousness of the offence - possession of a commercial quantity of ganja - justified continued custody. The State contended that the investigation was ongoing and that the absence of a report was an administrative oversight, not a legal bar to detention. However, the Prosecutor did not produce any evidence of progress in the investigation or specific reasons for the delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the language of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, which is unambiguous in its mandate. The provision 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, extends custody. The Court held that the phrase "shall be released" creates a mandatory obligation, not a discretionary one.
"The statutory right to bail under Section 36A(4) is not contingent upon the nature of the offence or the quantity of narcotics involved. It is triggered solely by the failure to complete the investigation within the stipulated period and the absence of a valid extension report."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the gravity of the offence could override the statutory right. It noted that the legislature had deliberately imposed a time limit to prevent prolonged pre-trial detention in NDPS cases, recognizing the potential for abuse in investigations involving serious charges. The Court further observed that the failure to file a report under Section 36A(4) is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive failure that extinguishes the State’s authority to detain.
The Court also relied on its own recent decision granting bail to the co-accused, holding that denying bail to the petitioner on identical facts would violate the principle of equal treatment under Article 14. The Court emphasized that the absence of a report from the Public Prosecutor rendered the detention unlawful, regardless of whether the investigation was progressing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces the non-negotiable nature of the 180-day bail right under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Practitioners must now treat the failure to file a Section 36A(4) report as a decisive ground for bail applications, irrespective of the quantity of narcotics or the perceived seriousness of the case. Prosecutors must ensure timely filing of extension reports with specific reasons for delay; otherwise, courts will be bound to release the accused.
The ruling also clarifies that bail cannot be denied on the basis of the nature of the offence alone. Even in commercial quantity cases, the statutory timeline prevails. Defence counsel should routinely check the date of arrest and the filing status of the charge sheet in NDPS cases. If the 180-day period has lapsed without a valid extension report, a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. or Section 483 BNSS is likely to succeed.
Courts may now impose reasonable conditions, as done here, to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevent tampering. However, such conditions cannot substitute for the statutory requirement of a valid extension report.
