APHC010597292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1246/2025 Between: Shahnawaz and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam1 in Crl.M.P.No.1175 of 2025 in Cr.No.47 of 2025 of Kotauratla Police Station on 30.10.2025 extending the period of remand up to 250 days from the day the Petitioners were remanded to judicial custody for the first time. 1 the Trial Court 2 2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners were virtually produced before the learned Sessions Judge before passing of the remand extension order. However, there is no reference about this aspect in the order of extension of the remand. 3. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.1175 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025, passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 5. As seen from the record on 176th day of the judicial custody of the Petitioners, a remand extension petition was filed before the learned Trial Court. The impugned order doesn’t reflect that at the time of extension of the remand the Petitioners were either produced physically or virtually. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat2, at paragraph No.30 held as under: “45. The logical and legal consequence of the grant of extension of time is the deprivation of the indefeasible right available to the accused to claim a default bail. If we accept the argument that the failure of the prosecution to produce the accused before the Court and to inform him that the application of extension is being considered by the Court is a mere procedural irregularity, it will negate the proviso added by sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the 2015 Act and that may amount to violation of rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The reason is the grant of the extension of time takes away the right of the accused to get default bail which is intrinsically connected with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution which is required to be followed before the liberty of a person is taken away has to be a fair and reasonable procedure. In fact, procedural safeguards play an important role in protecting the liberty guaranteed by Article 21. The failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the 22022 Supreme (SC) 973 3 failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21” 7. As per Jigar supra, failure to procure the presence of the Accused either physically or virtually before the Court and failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered not a mere procedural irregularity, it is a gross illegality that violates the fundamental right of the Accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the instant case the impugned order doesn’t reflect that such procedural safeguard contemplated by Jigar supra was followed. Indeed, the learned Trial Court neither secured the presence of the Accused physically nor virtually nor informed the Petitioners that judicial remand was extended. Therefore, there is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Be that as it may, even at the time of extension of the remand in any other case either by the Magistrate or by the Trial Court, they cannot mechanically pass extension order of remand. The remand extension has to be informed to the Accused either by securing him physically or virtually. For the above reasons the Criminal Revision Case is required to be allowed, as there are merits. 10. This Court, in Crl.R.C.Nos.1114, 1115, 1139, 1113, 1172 and 1163 of 2025 in similar circumstances, enlarged the petitioners on bail by setting aside the order extending the remand passed by the learned Special Judge. In the present case, the petition seeking extension of remand was filed on the 176th day of the petitioners remand. No counter was filed by the accused 4 before the learned Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1175 of 2025. The learned Trial Court was under a legal obligation to inform the petitioners about the order extending the remand passed against them. 11. In the result the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.1175 of 2025 in Cr.No.47 of 2025 of Kotauratla Police Station on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam is set aside. 12. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed with the following conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Kotauratal Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that 5 they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 13. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated 11.11.2025 KMS 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1246/2025 11.11.2025 W KMS 52