Statutory claims for bail under the NDPS Act require compelling reasons for detention beyond 180 days.

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A4 to A6 and A3 respectively, and are in custody in Crime No.7 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have challenged the orders dated 08.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, in Crl.M.P.No.1786 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.2025 of 2025, allowing the request of the respondent for extension of time to conduct further investigation and file the final report and rejecting the statutory bail.

2. The petitioners were arrested on 12.01.2025. It is the case of the prosecution that the first and second accused were found in possession of 340 kgs of ganja; and that the petitioners/A4 to A6 and A3 were also involved in the offence of conspiracy in the alleged crime.

3. The statutory period of 180 days for investigation from the date of remand of the accused, i.e., 12.01.2025, expired on 11.07.2025. The learned Public Prosecutor filed a report in Crl.M.P.No.1786 of 2025 seeking extension of time to complete the investigation under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The learned Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, extended the time for completion of the investigation by two months, vide the order dated 08.07.2025 impugned in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15094 of 2025. Subsequently, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16742 of 2025 filed Crl.M.P.No.2025 of 2025 under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking statutory bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, vide the order dated 23.07.2025 impugned in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16742 of 2025.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, without adhering to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the learned Additional District Judge had extended the period by another two months to complete the investigation, thereby denying the petitioners their valuable right to be released on statutory bail; and that the report of the learned Public Prosecutor seeking extension of time has to satisfy the twin requirements, namely, that there is appreciable progress in the investigation and that there are specific and compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the orders of this Court in Mohamed Asaruthin v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Gummidipoondi, dated 27.11.2024, in Crl.R.C. Nos.1847, 1885, 1849 and 2002 of 2024, and in S.Kuppusamy v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Tiruvallur, dated 31.01.2025, in Crl.R.C. No.1307 of 2024.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the final report in this case was filed on 31.08.2025 and taken on file as C.C.No.186 of 2025 on 03.09.2025; that the trial will be concluded in the near future; and that since the petitioners are involved in serious offences, wherein the first and second accused were found in possession of 340 kgs of ganja, the impugned orders do not call for any interference.

6. The short point involved in this case is whether the impugned orders extending the period by two months for filing the final report, on the report filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, and rejecting the statutory bail, can be sustained.

7. In paragraph 11 of the report, the learned Public Prosecutor had sought extension of time by stating that they are awaiting the