Court Rules that Failure to Notify Accused of Extension Application Violates Mandatory Safeguards Under NDPS Act, Grants Bail to Petitioners
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Manisha Batra, quashed an order granting an extension of the investigation period under Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Court held that the failure to issue notice to the accused or their counsel and to provide an opportunity to be heard invalidated the extension order. Consequently, the accused—Akash and Vishal—were granted default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The case arose from FIR No.442 dated December 22, 2025, registered at Police Station Hodal, Palwal, involving recovery of narcotic drugs including Pentazocine and Binorphine injections in commercial quantities. Akash and Vishal were arrested during investigation and remanded to judicial custody. The statutory investigation period of 180 days expired on June 22 and June 23, 2026 respectively, without filing of the charge-sheet.
The prosecution sought a three-month extension citing ongoing investigative activities such as data extraction from mobile phones and verification of supply chains. The trial court granted this extension on May 29, 2026. However, Akash and Vishal contended they were neither informed nor heard during the extension proceedings, as their remand proceedings were separate from co-accused Sanjay and Krishan Kumar, who were represented and notified.
The High Court emphasized the mandatory procedural safeguard under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act that the accused must be informed and given an opportunity to contest any extension request. Drawing upon the Supreme Court’s precedent in Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2023) and the recent case Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan (2023), the Court reaffirmed that such safeguards are not mere formalities but essential to protect the accused’s fundamental rights. The absence of notice and hearing was held to be a fatal flaw, rendering the extension order ineffective against the petitioners.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had moved applications for default bail before the charge-sheet was filed, thereby accruing an indefeasible right to default bail. The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet could not retrospectively defeat this right.
As a result, the Court set aside the extension order dated May 29, 2026, and the dismissal order dated July 1, 2026, which had rejected the default bail applications. Akash and Vishal were ordered to be released from custody upon furnishing personal and surety bonds, subject to their non-involvement in other cases.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural safeguards in criminal investigations, especially in cases involving stringent laws like the NDPS Act. It reinforces that accused persons’ rights to default bail cannot be overridden by non-compliance with statutory requirements during extension of investigation periods.
Bottom Line:
Extension of investigation period under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act must comply with the mandatory safeguard of informing and hearing the accused - Failure to issue notice or provide an opportunity to the accused to be heard invalidates the extension order and preserves the accused's statutory right to default bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 36-A(4), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 187(3)
Akash v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971080
