\ APHC010550872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1139 OF 2025 Revision filed under Section 397 r/w Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. and 438 r/w Sec.442 of BNSS., against the order dated 25.09.2025 in CrI.M.P. No. 1051 of 2025 in Crime No. 166 of 2025 of Pendurthi P.S. passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: 1. Bisoyi Sahadev, S/o. Bhagavan, aged 47 years, R/o. Kumbripada Village, Makavaram Post, Munchangiput Mandal, ASR District. 2. Korra Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Chaithan, aged 38 years, R/o. Kumbripada Village, Makavaram Post, Munchangiput Mandal, ASR District. 3. Ajay Sham Chavan, S/o2 Shyam Chavan, aged 26 years, R/o. Canal Road, Sramik Nagar, Nasik Road Nasik District, Maharashtra State. 4. Ankith Joshi @ Ankith Pankaj Joshi, S/o. Pankaj Joshi, aged 25 years, R/o. Canal Road, Sramik Nagar, Nasik Road, Nasik District, Maharashtra State, N/o. Sanjay Nagar, Majurwadi Panchayat, Nasik District, Maharashtra State. 5. Prem Kumar Rao, S/o. Mahesh Kumar Rao, aged 28 years, R/o. New Street, Christian Peta Junction, Jeypore City, Koraput District, Odisha State. ...Revision Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 438 (1) of Cr.P.C., and Section 482 (1) of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 on bail in connection with Crime No. 166 of 2025 of Pendurthi P.S., Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: / / J APHC010550872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THUF^SDAYJHE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1139/2025 Between: 1.BISOYI SAHADEV, S/0. BHAGAVAN, AGED 47 YEARS KUMBRIPADA VILLAGE, MAKAVARAM POST, MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT. 2.KORRA SANYASI RAO,, S/0. CHAITHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, R/0. KUMBRIPADA VILLAGE, MAKAVARAM POST MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT. 3.AJAY SHAM CHAVAN,, S/0. SHYAM CHAVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, R/0. CANAL ROAD, SRAMIK NAGAR, NASIK ROAD NASIK DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE. R/0. MUNCHANGIPUT MUNCHANGIPUT 4.ANKITH JOSHI @ ANKITH PANKAJ JOSHI,, S/0. PANKAJ JOSHI, AGED 25 YEARS, R/0. CANAL ROAD, SRAMIK NAGAR, NASIK NASIK DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE, N/0. SANJAY MAJURWADI PANCHAYAT, ROAD, NAGAR, MAHARASHTRA STATE. NASIK DISTRICT, S/0. MAHESH KUMAR RAO, AGED 28 R/0. NEW STREET, CHRISTIAN PETA JUNCTION, 5.PREM KUMAR RAO, YEARS, JEYPORE CITY, KORAPUT DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT 2 Dr. YLR, J _ CrI. R. C. No. 1139 of 2025 f Dated 16.10.2025 Counsel for the Petitioner{S): GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; \ ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam ^ in Crl.M.P.No.1051 of 2025 in Cr.No.166 of 2025 of Pendurthi Police Station 25.09.2025 extending the period of remand up to 250 days from the day the Petitioners were remanded to judicial custody for the first time. 2. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. Now the point for consideration is; order on 3. “Whether the order in CrI.M..PNo. 1051/2025 dated 25.09.2025, passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge- 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?” As seen from the record cum- 4. on 165^'' day of the judicial custody of the Petitioners remand extension petition was filed before the learned Trial Court the Trial Court '>-a. 3 Dr. YLR, J ,Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2025 Dated16.10.2025 19.09.2025. The impugned order doesn’t reflect that at the time of extension of the remand the Petitioners were either produced physically or virtually. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat^, 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 sqb-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 takei 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 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" 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 5. 6. the Constitution of India. In the instant case the impugned order doesn’t reflect that such procedural safeguard contemplated by Jigar supra was followed. Indeed, the 7. ^2022 Supreme (SC) 973 4 Dr. YLR, j CrI. R. C. No. 1139 of 2025 \ Dated 16.10.2025 ‘ learned Trial Court neither secured the presence of the Accused physically virtually nor Informed the petitioners that judiciai remand nor was extended. Therefore, there is vioiation of Articie 21 of the Constitution The learned of India. 8. counsel for the petitioners petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 before the submits that the learned Trial Court had not filed any counter in the application filed for extension of the remand period. In such a informed the petitioners, either case, the etamed Triai Court ought to have I physically or virtually, that their remand had been extended^ 9. Be that as it may, even at the time of extension of the or by the Trial Court they of remand. The remand extension remand in any cannot has to either by securing him physically or virtually. For Revision Case is required to be allowed. other case either by the Magistrate mechanically pass extension order be informed to the Accused ei the above reasons the Criminal there are merits. as 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision dated 25.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1051 of 2025 i Pendurthi Police Station Case is allowed, the impugned order - in Cr.No.166 of 2025 of District and of Offences under the NDPS Act, on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial Visakhapatnam', is set aside. 11. The Criminal Revision Case i i- The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 on bail subject to them IS allowed with the following conditions; to 5 shall be enlarged executing a bond for a sum of 5 Dr. YLR, J CrI.R.C.No. 1139 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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 to 5 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 arn and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court, iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior perniission from the Station House Officer concerned, iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not commit indulge in commission of any offence in future. V. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case ancj shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. Vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to \ or Y\ 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2025 \ Dated 16.10.2025 " dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall surrender \ their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Revision Case 12. is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Judge to the Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 4. One CC to Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies SAM \ \ \ \ \ HIGH COURT \ \ \ \ DATED: 16/10/2025 \ ORDER CRLRC No. 1139 of 2025 g{ 17 OCT 2025 ^J'xlJuiTentSectiojj^* x>: r»-.J ^5- ' K ALLOWING THE CRLRC f