APHC010300522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 722/2026 Between: 1. OKADADAM LALITHA KUMARI, D/O CHINNABBAI,W/O A.RAVI KUMAR, 29 YEARS,N/O CHERAPALLI VILLAGE, LOTHUGEDDA JUNCTION,CHINTAPALLI MANDAL, R/O SAINAGAR,CHINTAPALLIV MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT. . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K K KOMALAN 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.492 of 2026 in Cr.No.158/2025 of Nathavaram Police Station on 24.06.2026 1 the Trial Court 2 extending the period of remand up to 250 days from the day the Petitioner/Accused No.7 was remanded to judicial custody for the first time. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. K.K. Komalan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order extending the judicial custody of the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in Crime No.158 of 2025, is unsustainable as it was passed mechanically without recording reasons, in violation of Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act.,’) and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The learned Judge failed to note that investigation has substantially progressed, no specific grounds were shown for further detention, and the prosecution did not file a proper report of the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and necessity of continued custody, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra2. The Public Prosecutor is not a mere forwarding agency but must independently apply his mind and submit a valid report, failing which the Designated Court has no jurisdiction to extend custody, and the accused acquires an indefeasible right to bail. The Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He contends that the Petitioner is a woman aged about 29 years and is suffering from palpitations and anaemia. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Petitioner acted as a pilot on a scooty. The petitioner has 2 (1994) 4 SCC 602 3 been in judicial custody for the past 221 days. The impugned order, being non‑speaking and mechanical, violates constitutional safeguards and if allowed to stand would cause grave prejudice to the Petitioner, hence deserves to be set aside and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the revision and submits that the order of the learned Special Judge is perfectly justified and sustainable in law, as the report filed under Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ clearly demonstrates independent scrutiny and application of mind. The Incharge Additional Public Prosecutor before the learned Special Court examined the seizure proceedings, FIR, case diaries, remand reports, statements of witnesses, and progress reports, and upon such assessment was satisfied that substantial progress had been achieved in the investigation, including examination of ten witnesses and completion of inventory, while crucial aspects such as call data records, verification of supply chain and conspiracy angle, tracing of absconding accused, and inter‑state agency coordination remain pending, unless the remand of Accused Nos.1 to 8 is extended beyond 180 days, the investigation would be seriously prejudiced and the larger conspiracy behind the seizure of 74 kgs of ganja would remain untraced. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the law as laid down in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra makes it clear that the Public Prosecutor is not a mere forwarding agency but must apply his mind, which has been duly done in the present case, and the report discloses specific 4 reasons and progress warranting extension. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality but is a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion safeguarding the interests of justice. Hence, it is urged that the Criminal Revision Case be dismissed. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while construing clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, underscored that the legislative mandate requires the extension of time for investigation to be sought only “on the report of the Public Prosecutor” and not at the behest of the investigating officer. The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor, being an independent statutory authority and not a mere adjunct of the police, is duty-bound to apply his mind to the progress of the investigation and the justification for further detention before submitting such a report. It was categorically held that the Public Prosecutor is neither a “post office” nor a “forwarding agency” of the investigating officer, and his report must disclose, on its face, conscious satisfaction with the investigation’s progress and the necessity of continued custody. The Court further clarified that in the absence of a valid report under clause (bb), or where the Designated Court declines extension, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to bail by default, which cannot be defeated by extraneous considerations. Thus, the jurisprudential thrust of the ruling is that the liberty of the citizen must be zealously 5 safeguarded, and any curtailment thereof through extension of custody must strictly conform to the statutory safeguards envisaged under Section 20(4)(bb). 8. In Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana3, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at paragraph No.11 authoritatively elucidated that Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ embodies the legislative mandate of expeditious and diligent investigation, ensuring that an accused is not subjected to indefinite or protracted incarceration on account of investigative lethargy or administrative indifference. The provision contemplates that while the investigating agency must ordinarily complete the investigation within the prescribed statutory period, any prayer for extension of time is not to be granted as a matter of course. Rather, the investigating agency must first withstand the objective scrutiny of the Public Prosecutor, who, being an independent statutory functionary distinct from and not subservient to the investigating machinery, is obligated to undertake a conscious, impartial, and independent evaluation of the progress of the investigation and the necessity for continued detention of the accused. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor is required to place before the Designated Court a reasoned and substantive report, reflecting due application of mind, delineating the progress achieved in the investigation, disclosing compelling and legally sustainable grounds justifying further custody, and demonstrating why additional time is indispensable for completion of the investigation. Such report must be accompanied by the 3 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 6623 6 Investigating Officer’s request and should, on its very face, manifest that the Public Prosecutor has independently assessed the material placed before him and arrived at a bona fide satisfaction regarding the necessity of seeking extension, thereby preserving the statutory safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty. 9. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,4, wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 10. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An 4 2026 SCC Online 188 7 application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. 11. In the present case, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the pendency of the previous antecedents against her, though the same are reported by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. 12. Section 36‑A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ embodies a special statutory scheme, permitting extension of the period of investigation beyond 180 days only upon the independent report of the Public Prosecutor. This safeguard ensures that the liberty of the accused is not curtailed at the whims of the investigating agency but only after objective scrutiny by an independent statutory authority. In the present case, the Incharge Additional Public Prosecutor had examined the seizure proceedings, FIR, case diaries, remand reports, statements of witnesses, and progress reports, and upon such assessment, recorded his satisfaction that substantial progress had been achieved and further investigation was indispensable. Thus, the statutory requirement was duly complied with. 13. The investigation was still in progress and several crucial aspects remained incomplete. These included obtaining call data records, verifying the source and supply chain of the contraband, tracing absconding accused, collecting inter‑state and inter‑agency information, and examining additional witnesses. The contraband seized was 74 kilograms of ganja, a commercial quantity under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and the larger conspiracy behind its transportation was yet to be unearthed. Unless the remand was extended, the 8 investigation would be seriously prejudiced and the truth behind the offence would remain concealed. 14. It is emphasized that the Public Prosecutor had not acted as a mere forwarding agency but had independently scrutinized the material and applied his mind, as mandated in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra. The report disclosed specific reasons and progress warranting extension, thereby satisfying the twin conditions under Section 36‑A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The precedents relied upon by the Petitioner arose in different factual contexts and did not apply to the present case where the Public Prosecutor’s report was substantive and reasoned. 15. It is observed that the learned Trial Court had carefully considered the report of the Public Prosecutor, the counters filed by the accused, and the material on record before arriving at its conclusion. The learned Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for extending the remand, and its order reflected due application of judicial discretion. It is also observed that the Petitioner had criminal antecedents, having been involved in similar offences in 2017, which further justified the cautious approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in refusing bail and extending custody. 16. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra it is held that Public Prosecutor’s independent report mandatory; Investigating Officer application alone insufficient. In Sanjay Dutt v. State5, it is held that accused must be produced when extension is considered. In Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Narcotics Control 5 (1994) 5 SCC 410 9 Bureau6 and Hitendra supra applies to Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and Public Prosecutor cannot act as post office. In M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence7, it is held that invalid extension leads to enforceable right of default bail. In Jigar v. State of Gujarat8, reaffirms independent Public Prosecutor report, application of mind, and notice/production requirements. 17. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an application by the Investigating Officer is not the statutory application contemplated by the proviso to Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.’ Even though the Investigating Officer has not submitted a proposal to the Public Prosecutor, the Court can extend time only on the report of the Public Prosecutor which independently scrutinized the material and record regarding the progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days. 18. Finally, this Court reiterates the jurisprudential thrust of Section 36‑A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ that while investigation must ordinarily be completed within the statutory period, extension of time is permissible only upon a reasoned report of the Public Prosecutor, reflecting independent application of mind and compelling grounds. In the present case, those conditions were satisfied, and the learned Trial Court rightly extended the remand up to 250 days. The impugned order did not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality, but was a lawful exercise safeguarding the interests of justice. 6 (2009) 17 SCC 631 7 (2021) 2 SCC 485 8 (2023) 6 SCC 484 10 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated:21.07.2026 VTS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No