Under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, an extension of the statutory investigation period requires the prosecution to prove appreciable progress and provide specific compelling reasons for further detention; the mere pending status of a forensic lab report is insufficient to justify continued detention.

ORDER

These two revisions have been filed challenging the order, dated 13.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1942/2025 passed by the Special Court for EC Act / NDPS Cases, Coimbatore allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 36 A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and dismissing the petitioner’s bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.2139 of 2025.

2. The petitioner who is arrayed as A2 was arrested for alleged possession of 14.5 grams of Methamphetamine on 21.03.2025. The statutory period of 180 days ended on 17.09.2025 . On the 174th day, the prosecution filed a petition in CMP No.1942 of 2025 under Section 36A(4) seeking extension of time for completion of investigation. On 18.09.2025, the petitioner filed a petition for statutory bail which was returned unnumbered on the same day on the ground that the respondent has filed an extension petition to file the final report. Thereafter the petitioner had filed another petition which was numbered as CMP No.2139 of 2025. Both the petitions in CMP Nos.1942 and 2139 of 2025 along with the bail petition filed by A1 (who is not before this Court) were heard together.

3. The learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent, granting extension of time by one month to complete the investigation and consequently, dismissed the petitioner’s petition for statutory bail. It is against these two orders, the petitioner has preferred the above revisions.

4. Mr.R.Vivekanandhan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has not complied with the statutory requirement under proviso to Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, by stating the compelling reason to justify further detention pending investigation and this issue had been covered by series of Judgments of this Court and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner has to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent had filed an petition under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, giving the details of the investigation conducted till then and the reasons for extending the time to complete the investigation; that therefore considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the reasons cited by the respondent, the learned Judge was justified in allowing the respondent’s petition and dismissing the petitioner’s petition and sought for dismissal of both the revisions. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that that even before granting the extension of time, final report has been filed on 22.09.2025 in C.C.No.230 of 2025.

6. It is seen from the impugned order passed in CMP No.1942 of 2025 that the learned Judge had extended the time to file the final report by one month on the ground that the respondents are bound to file the forensic lab report as there is a discrepancy with regard to whether the contraband seized is Methamphetamine or MDMA tablets. Therefore the learned Judge observed that the prosecution was justified in seeking extension of time.

7. This Court has repeatedly held that in an application filed under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, the Public Prosecutor is bound to state the appreciable progress in the investigation and also the specific compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation