1 APHC010663152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1400/2025 Between: Venkatesh Papulu, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1401/2025 Between: Viyyapu Govinda ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1415/2025 Between: Boddu Nanaji ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1392/2025 Between: Madula Siva Kumar ...PETITIONER AND 2 The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1437/2025 Between: Bangaru Appalanaidu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1468/2025 Between: Allu Rakesh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Gollapalli Maheswara RAO Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These six criminal revision cases arise out of one and the same cause of action. As such, they are heard and disposed of together. Though the petitioners are different, the crime involved is the same. 2. The petitioners were arrested in connection with Crime No.44 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, for the alleged offences under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and were remanded to judicial custody by the learned Jurisdictional Court. From time to time, their judicial custody was extended by the learned Jurisdictional Court. 3 3. On the 161st day of the remand of the petitioners, the prosecution filed a petition before the learned Trial Court seeking extension of their judicial custody beyond 180 days. The said petition was filed on 07.11.2025 and was allowed on 29.11.2025, thereby extending the remand of the petitioners beyond 180 days and up to 250 days from the date of their first remand. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have challenged the order extending their remand passed in Crl.M.P.No.1224 of 2025, vide order dated 29.11.2025, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a detailed counter and submitted that on 19.11.2025, Accused Nos.1 to 9 were produced before the learned Jurisdictional Court from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, through the Micro Teams app via video conferencing, and they were informed about the petition filed by the prosecution seeking extension of their remand beyond 180 days. The case was adjourned for continuation of hearing to 20.11.2025. 6. It is pertinent to note that no order seeking extension of remand was passed by the learned Trial Court on 19.11.2025, nor was any order passed on 20.11.2025. Ultimately, the learned Trial Court passed orders on 29.11.2025 extending the remand up to 250 days. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat1, at paragraph No.35 held as under: “35. The orders passed by the Special Court of extending the period of investigation are rendered illegal on account of the failure of the respondents to produce the accused before the Special Court either physically or virtually when the prayer for grant of extension made by the Public Prosecutor was considered. It was the duty of the Special Court to ensure that this important 12022 Supreme (SC) 973 4 procedural safeguard was followed. Moreover, the oral notice, as contemplated by this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt, was also not given to the accused.” 7. On a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that while extending the remand up to 250 days, the learned Jurisdictional Court did not inform the petitioners of the extension of remand either virtually or physically. A legal obligation is cast upon the learned Special Court / learned Trial Court to ensure that the procedural safeguards contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are duly complied with. Even the impugned order does not reflect that the petitioners were informed that their remand was extended beyond 180 days. 8. Mere information to the petitioners on a date other than the date on which the impugned order was passed is not sufficient. The learned Trial Court ought to have informed the petitioners about the extension of remand on the very day of passing the order. 9. Accused No.11 was already enlarged on bail on 05.12.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.1387 of 2025. Accused No.4 was also enlarged on bail on 05.12.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.1386 of 2025. Similarly, Accused No.3 was already enlarged on bail by order dated 18.12.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.1443 of 2025, subject to certain stringent conditions. 10. The alleged contraband involved in the case is 750 kgs, which is undoubtedly a colossal quantity. If certain stringent conditions are imposed while enlarging the petitioners on bail, they would comply with the same and would not evade the process of law. 11. The petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.1400 of 2025 are permanent residents of Papulu Village, Malkangiri District, Odisha State, and Y. Ramavaram Mandal, 5 ASR District. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1437 of 2025 is a permanent resident of Chandrayyapeta Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1392 of 2025 is a permanent resident of Devarapalli Village, G.K. Veedhi Mandal, ASR District. The petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.1401, 1415 and 1468 of 2025 are permanent residents of Rolugunta, Gollapeta and Antlapalem Villages, Rolugunta Mandal, Anakapalli District. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya’s case. Hence, the said order is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 12. In the result the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed, the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1224 of 2025 in Cr.No.44 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, 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. 13. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed with the following conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District on every Saturday in between 6 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 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 No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 14. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated:30.12.2025 KMS 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1400 of 2025 and batch Date: 30.12.2025 KMS