Production of the accused (physically or virtually) is mandatory when considering an extension of the investigation period under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act; failure to do so violates Article 21 and entitles the accused to statutory bail.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 20th day of August, 2026

The petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No.619/2024 registered by the Manjeswar Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii) A, 8(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘Act’, for brevity).

It is the petitioner’s case that he was arrested on 28.11.2025 and remanded to judicial custody on 29.11.2025. As the investigation was not completed within the stipulated period of 180 days, the Investigating Officer filed Annexure 2 application before the Court of Session, Kasaragod (‘learned Sessions Judge’, for short), seeking extension of the period for completing the investigation as provided under Section 36A (4) of the Act. By Annexure 3 order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and granted a further period of one year for completion of the investigation. The petitioner challenged the order before this Court and, by Annexure 4 order, this Court set aside the order and permitted the petitioner to file his objection to the application, and directed the learned Sessions Judge to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed Annexure 5 objection. In the interregnum, the petitioner also filed Crl. M.P. No.2/2026 seeking statutory bail. The learned Sessions Judge, however, by the impugned Annexure 6 common order, again allowed the application filed by Investigating Officer by granting him a further period of one year to complete the investigation and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is unsustainable in law since he was not produced before the learned Sessions Judge, either in person or virtually, when Annexure 2 application was considered. According to the petitioner, his non-production before the above Court while considering an application under Section 36A (4) is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Justin T.J. v. State of Kerala [2023 (4) KHC 453] and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2023) 6 SCC 484]. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside, and the petitioner may be enlarged on statutory bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The materials on record establish that the petitioner was arrested on 28.11.2025 and remanded to judicial custody on the following day. Admittedly, the investigation had not been completed, and the final report (complaint) had not been filed before the expiry of the 180- day period permitted under Section 36A(4) of the Act. The Investigating Officer consequently filed Annexure 2 application seeking permission to continue the investigation beyond the above period. The learned Sessions Judge, by Annexure 3 order, allowed the application and granted a further period of one year to complete the investigation. As the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard while Annexure 2 application was considered, this Court, by Annexure 4 order, set aside Annexure 3 order and remitted the matter to the learned Sessions Judge for fresh consideration. On remand, the petitioner filed Annexure 5 objection to Annexure 2 application, and also filed Crl. M.P. No.2/2026 seeking statutory bail. By the impugned Annexure 6 common order, the learned Sessions Judge granted extension of time by a further period of one year, but dismissed the petitioner’s application for statutory bail.

The petitioner’s principal contention is that the impugned order was passed without producing him before the learned Sessions Judge, either physically or through electronic means, when the application for extension of time was considered, which is contrary to the principles laid down in the decisions in Jigar alias Jimmy Prav