logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 421 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl.R.C.No. 2470 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Parties : M. Kaviruban Versus The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Santhosh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Dr.C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
Date of Judgment : 02-01-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 438 r/w 442 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MHC 36,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS
- EC & NDPS Act
- Section 187(2) of BNSS
- Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
- Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985
- Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985
- Section 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Statutory bail
- Revision
- NDPS Act
- Mandatory period
- Charge sheet
- Cognizance

3. Summary:
The revision petition challenges a docket order that returned a bail application on the ground that the statutory minimum period had not been completed. The petitioner was arrested under several provisions of the NDPS Act, with no contraband seized and the case based largely on a co‑accused’s confession. The trial court returned the bail petition citing the absence of a final report, while the prosecution argued the report was filed within the statutory period. The higher court noted ambiguity regarding the exact filing date of the final report and directed the trial court to examine the bail application on its merits. Consequently, the docket order was set aside, and the trial court was instructed to decide the bail application within a week. The revision case was disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned docket order dated 28.10.2025 in Crl.MP.Sr.No.9091 of 2025 made by the learned Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act at Chennai and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.214 of 2025, pending on the file of the respondent police.)

1. The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the docket order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act at Chennai, returning the petition for bail filed under Section 187(2) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.)

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was arrested on 28.04.2025 for the alleged offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985; that no contraband was seized from the petitioner; that he was implicated only on the confession of the co-accused; and that the role alleged by the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused had conspired to purchase ganja from Andhra Pradesh and sell it in Tamil Nadu.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had sought for statutory bail on 14.10.2025 and the same was returned on 15.10.2025 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the mandatory minimum period for statutory bail; that thereafter he had represented the petition on 25-10-2025 stating that the petitioner was in custody for 181 days; that even thereafter the learned Judge had returned the said petition stating that the remand report has not been received by the Court; and that the instant revision has been filed, challenging the said docket order.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the final report was filed before the mandatory period of 180 days and therefore, the learned Judge was right in returning the bail application of the petitioner.

5. Since there was no clarity on which date the final report was filed, this Court had called for a report from the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, as to when the final report was filed. The learned Judge has sent a report dated 17.12.2025, stating that the charge sheet was uploaded on 09.10.2025; that since it was not in order, the cognizance could not be taken and after obtaining the required documents the cognizance was taken and the case was numbered on 19.11.2025 as C.C.No.1566 of 2025.

6. It appears from the report that the final report though was uploaded on 09.10.2025 had certain defects. The defects were rectified only in the month of November 2025. The mandatory period of 180 days according to the petitioner ended on 25.10.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have examined the petition for default bail filed by the petitioner on merits and decided whether the final report was filed in accordance with law before the mandatory period, instead of returning the said petition.

7. Hence, the impugned docket order is set aside. The learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under NDPS Act, is directed to take the application of the petitioner on file and consider whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or claim of the petitioner. The learned Judge shall decide the application of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above observation, the criminal revision case is disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal