APHC010289432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 583 OF 2026 Between: 1. Laba Khara Alias Abraham, S/o. Late Balabadra, aged about 33 years,R/o. Hatipadar Village, Badapadar Post,Chitrakonda Block, Malkangiri District, Odisha State. 2. Siman Pangi Alias Seemon, ,S/o. Lingu, aged about 31 years,R/o. Gejeedu Village, Ralagada Panchayat,Chitrakonda Block, Malkangiri District, Odisha State. 3. Vanthala Babji Alias Bobby, ,S/o. Bhaskararao, aged about 28 years,R/o. Varthanapalli Village, Thammingula Panchayat,Chinthapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. 4. Pangi Seshu, S/o. late Srikanth, aged about 20 years,R/o. Kotagunnalu Village, Kudumasari Panchayat,Chithapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. 5. Himansu Suna Alias Guru, ,S/o. Lemok, aged about 51 years,R/o. Malkangiri Colony, Malkangiri Block and District,Odisha State. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, ,Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, whereby the remand period of the petitioners was extended from 180 days to 350 days from the date of their initial remand to judicial custody. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr. Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision, submitted that the order extending the remand period was passed on the 182nd day. He further relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat and Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr., and submitted that the procedure followed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law laid down in the said judgments. He therefore prayed to allow the revision petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. G. Neelotpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that, after filing of the report by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case, the learned Sessions Judge extended the period of remand having regard to the exigencies of the investigating agency for collection of further evidence. 5. As seen from the record, the learned Trial Court, by order dated 27.05.2026, extended the period of remand up to 350 days. The order of remand was passed on 180th day. An application seeking extension of remand was filed on the 177th day. The learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing before the learned Trial Court, filed a counter opposing the said application. The learned Trial Court, having considered the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of the accused, passed the order extending the remand period. 6. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were denied an opportunity to file their counter to the application seeking extension of remand. However, the specific grievance of the petitioners is that, after passing the order extending the remand period beyond 180 days, they were not informed of the said extension either physically or through virtual mode. 7. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat1, is relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused is required to be informed of the order extending the period of remand. 8. In the present case, it is evident from paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the learned Sessions Judge informed the accused/petitioners that an application seeking extension of their remand had been filed, and such information was given through virtual mode. However, the learned Trial Court, 1 2022 Supreme (SC) 973 after passing the order, extending the period of remand beyond 180 days up to 350 days, did not inform the petitioners of the said order either through virtual mode or physically. 9. Thus, though the petitioners were informed about the filing of the application seeking extension of remand, they were not informed about the decision extending the remand period up to 350 days. The said non- compliance is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (supra). 10. The requirement of informing the accused about the extension of the remand period assumes significance as it directly concerns the personal liberty of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the present case, the failure to inform the petitioners of the order extending the remand period beyond 180 days up to 350 days amounts to violation of the said requirement. 11. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed with the following conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) with three sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, 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, 4 to 7 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 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, 4 to 7 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court. vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they does 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. 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: 25.08.2026 JLSR 29 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 583 of 2026 Dated: 25.08.2026 JLSR