♦ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI c| WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE :PRESiENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7450 OF 2025 v.^ ’.I i Vr,a'-' Between: 1. Palavalasa Janardana Rao, S/o. Ramu Naidu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Chinna Veedhi, Pedda Sirlam Village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram Dis 2. Palavalasa Rambabu, S/o. Varahala Naidu, aged about 27 years, R/o. Chinna Veedhi, Pedda Sirlam Village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. .... Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. I .... Respondent Petition under Section 437 & 439 of CrPC & sec 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.68/2025 of Kothavalasa P.S., Vizianagaram District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI ADAPA SUDHAKAR RAO Advocate for the Petitioners, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER 2 DY.YLR,J' ^ Crl.P.No.7450 of2025 Dated 05.11.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime.No.68 of 2025 of Kothavalasa Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant 2. Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioners/Accused 3. Nos.1 and 2 is that they were spot-arrested while found in possession of 23.40 KGs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner/Accused No.2 had acted as a car driver. The inventory has been completed. The petitioners were arrested on 05.05.2025 and they have been in judicial custody for the past 182 days. The extension of remand was ordered against the petitioners on an application filed to that effect till 10.11.2025. In the said remand extension order, there is no reference to the petitioners being informed about the extension of remand. The petitioners were neither secured physically nor 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7450of2025 Dated 05.11.2025 virtually at the time of extending the remand. A substantial portion of the investigation has been completed. 4. 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 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 failure to inform him that the application made bv 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” 5. 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions: ^2022 Supreme (SC) 973 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7450 of2025 Dated 05.11.2025 \. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothavalasa. ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. V. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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. vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7450 of2025 Dated 05.11.2025 case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/-U.SRI DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, The I Addl. Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Vizianagaram. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The SHO, Kothavalasa PS, Vizianagaram District. One CC to SRI. ADAPA SUDHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One spare copy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. \ 6. 7. HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:05/11/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7450 of 2025 ALLOWED