Commercial quantities of seized drugs trigger stricter requirements for bail under the NDPS Act; extension of investigation timelines unchallenged by the applicant limits judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

Heard Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS , 2023, for granting of bail to the accused applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2025-26, dated 01.05.2025.

3. A complaint was filed by one Inspector, Customs Headquarters Preventive, Shillong, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, alleging that on receipt of specific intelligence information on 01.05.2025 at around 0800 hours, a team of Customs Officers intercepted a suspected vehicle allegedly transporting contraband substances. At around 1200 hours, they intercepted a four-wheeler vehicle bearing registration No. MJ-01-J-8482 coming from Saiphai side with three occupants, namely, Sri K. Lalruatdika (driver), Sri Lalrothuama Theik (passenger) and Sri T. G. Liana (passenger/accused applicant). On enquiry, though the occupants initially denied possession of any contraband, they later admitted to concealing drugs in a secret cavity beneath the dashboard area. Due to the presence of a large crowd at the interception site, the three persons were taken to the Customs Preventive Force Office, Silchar. On intimation, the dashboard of the vehicle was opened with the help of a mechanic and six rectangular, tightly packed packets were recovered. It was alleged that the recovered packets weighed 6 (six) kgs net allegedly containing Methamphetamine tablets, and accordingly, inventory and panchnama were prepared. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, on 02.05.2025.

4. The pleaded case of the accused applicant is that he was only travelling in the said vehicle and had come for some business purpose, and that he did not have any knowledge of any contraband concealed in the vehicle. It is also pleaded that the accused applicant has been languishing in jail since 02.05.2025 and that his bail application was rejected on 01.09.2025 by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. It is further pleaded that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused applicant and that he was merely travelling in the vehicle. In view of his long detention, i.e. more than 180 days behind bars, the accused applicant is seeking bail with the assurance that he will cooperate with the investigation of the case, in the event, he is released from jail.

5. Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant, submits that the mandatory period of detention of 180 days elapsed on 27.10.2025 and since the accused applicant has already undergone the mandatory period, he should be released on bail. Learned counsel further submits that although the investigation was not completed within 180 days, the complainant, through the learned Special Public Prosecutor, prayed for extension of the period of investigation by filing an application, and the same was considered on 27.10.2025 by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, extending the time period for another 90 days in terms of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He submits that the said order is illegal as it is violative of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, since the application for extension of time was filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor mechanically, without considering all aspects of the matter. Learned counsel submits that the only ground shown in the said application was that the Investigating Officer was unable to complete the inv