Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 36A(4) – Default bail – Commercial quantity – Failure to file charge sheet within 180 days – No extension of time – Indefeasible right to bail

advocatemmmohan

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 36A(4) – Default bail – Commercial quantity – Failure to file charge sheet within 180 days – No extension of time – Indefeasible right to bail

Para 3, 4, 5, 6

Where the accused was arrested for an offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, remained in judicial custody for more than 180 days, and no charge sheet was filed nor any application moved by the prosecution seeking extension of time under Section 36A(4), the accused acquires an indefeasible statutory right to bail, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence or the quantity involved.

---

NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of remand – Mandatory compliance – Role of Special Court

Para 5

Extension of detention beyond 180 days under Section 36A(4) can be granted only on a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention; in the absence of such extension, continued incarceration is illegal.

---

Bail – Commercial quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Inapplicability at default stage

Para 4, 5, 6

The rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not defeat the statutory right of default bail once the conditions under Section 36A(4) are satisfied and the prosecution fails to act within the prescribed period.

---

Bail – Safeguards – Conditions imposed to secure investigation

Para 6

Even while granting default bail, the Court is entitled to impose stringent conditions to ensure the presence of the accused, prevent absconding, and safeguard the ongoing investigation.

---

ANALYSIS

1. Nature of Bail Granted

The bail granted in the present case is not on merits but on the basis of a statutory default, flowing from Section 36A(4) NDPS Act (Para 5). The Court expressly notes that the accused has remained in custody beyond the permissible period without legal sanction.

---

2. Prosecution’s Lapse is Decisive

The Court records multiple investigative failures (Para 3):

• No charge sheet filed even after nearly 190 days.

• No application seeking extension of time beyond 180 days.

• No request for custodial interrogation.

• Statutory period for seeking such custody already expired.

These lapses directly trigger the accused’s indefeasible right.

---

3. Commercial Quantity Not a Bar

Although 180 kgs of ganja (commercial quantity) was seized, the Court unequivocally holds that quantity and gravity are irrelevant once the statutory right under Section 36A(4) crystallises (Para 4, 5).

---

4. Section 37 NDPS Act Subordinated

The order implicitly applies settled law that Section 37 NDPS Act cannot override default bail, as the right under Section 36A(4) is a facet of personal liberty once statutory conditions are met (Para 5).

---

5. Balancing Liberty and Investigation

While recognising the possibility of absconding (Para 4), the Court balances competing interests by imposing:

• Weekly reporting,

• Territorial restriction,

• Non-interference with witnesses,

• Cooperation with investigation (Para 6).

Thus, liberty is restored without prejudicing prosecution.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Once the statutory period of 180 days prescribed under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act expires without filing of the charge sheet and without a valid extension granted by the Special Court on a Public Prosecutor’s report, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to bail, which cannot be defeated by the commercial quantity involved or the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.