ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case raises a narrow, yet constitutionally significant, question touching the liberty of two accused persons who stand implicated in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation is grave; the quantity alleged is commercial; the rigour of the NDPS Act is undoubtedly stern. Yet, even in prosecutions under special penal statutes, the command of procedure cannot be reduced to a matter of convenience. Where the statute fixes a maximum permissible period of investigative custody, liberty cannot be made to wait upon administrative explanations, filing ambiguities or post facto justifications.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2826 of 2025 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, dismissing their petition for statutory bail under Section 187(3)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Case of the Prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.03.2025, on receipt of secret information that ganja was being transported in a Tata Manza car bearing Registration No.KL-45-G-7475, the respondent police conducted vehicle checking at Othakadai Check Post. At about 7.40 a.m., the said vehicle was intercepted. The two occupants of the vehicle, who are the petitioners herein, allegedly attempted to escape, but were apprehended. Since they hailed from Kerala, they were enquired with the assistance of a translator. Upon search, 26.840 kilograms of ganja was allegedly recovered from the vehicle. The petitioners were thereafter arrested and remanded.

4. Crime No.123 of 2025 was registered for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act. The contraband was allegedly seized under mahazar, samples were drawn, and the material was sent for chemical analysis. The respondent would further state that the RFSL report confirmed that the seized contraband was ganja.

Procedural History:

5. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 25.03.2025. Claiming that they had completed more than 180 days of custody and that no valid final report had been filed before the competent Court within the statutory period, they filed Cr.M.P.No. 2826 of 2025 before the Special Court seeking statutory bail.

6. The learned Special Court, by order dated 24.09.2025, dismissed the petition, primarily on the ground that the charge sheet had been filed through online mode on 13.08.2025. The learned Special Court also observed that the offence was serious in nature and against society. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

Submissions on either side:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing statutory bail. It was submitted that the petitioners had completed 180 days of custody and that on the date when the statutory bail petition was filed, no final report was available before the Court in the eye of law.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that mere e-filing of a final report, especially when the manual charge sheet had not been filed and when the papers had not been taken on file, cannot defeat the indefeasible right of the accused. It was further argued that the prosecution never filed any application seeking extension of time under the proviso to Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the period of investigation could not have been extended beyond 180 days.

9. The learned counsel also contended that while considering a petition for statutory bail, the Court cannot go into the gravity of the offence, merits of the seizure, or the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The only enquiry is whether a valid final report had been filed within the prescribed period or whether the accused had availed the right before such filing.

10. Per con