NDPS Act – Extension of remand beyond 180 days – Section 36-A(4) NDPS Act – Article 21 of the Constitution – Accused not produced physically or virtually – No notice of extension of remand – Procedural safeguard violated – Illegality, not mere irregularity – Order extending remand set aside – Bail granted with conditions

Criminal Revision – NDPS Act – Extension of remand beyond 180 days – Section 36-A(4) NDPS Act – Article 21 of the Constitution – Accused not produced physically or virtually – No notice of extension of remand – Procedural safeguard violated – Illegality, not mere irregularity – Order extending remand set aside – Bail granted with conditions

Held:
Extension of remand beyond the statutory period under the NDPS Act without securing the physical or virtual presence of the accused and without informing the accused that the application for extension is being considered constitutes a gross illegality and violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such an order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
(Paras 5–10)

---

FACTS

The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in Crime No.296 of 2025 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for offences under the NDPS Act and were remanded to judicial custody.

On the 150th day of remand, the prosecution filed a petition seeking extension of remand beyond 180 days. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for NDPS cases, Visakhapatnam, by order dated 19.12.2025, extended the remand up to 210 days.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the legality of the extension of remand.
(Paras 1–4)

---

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the order extending remand beyond 180 days without securing the presence of the accused or informing them of such extension is sustainable in law.
(Paras 5–9)

---

FINDINGS

• No order extending remand was passed on 19.11.2025 or 20.11.2025.

• The learned Trial Court ultimately passed the extension order without securing the physical or virtual presence of the accused.

• The impugned order does not reflect that the accused were informed that the application for extension of remand was being considered.

• Failure to follow this safeguard is not a mere procedural irregularity but a gross illegality affecting the accused’s Article 21 rights.
  (Paras 5–7, 9)

The Court reiterated that even in NDPS cases, remand extension cannot be passed mechanically and the accused must be informed by securing their presence either physically or virtually.
(Para 8)

---

FINAL ORDER

1. Criminal Revision Case allowed.

2. The impugned order dated 19.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1295 of 2025 extending remand is set aside.

3. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail, subject to conditions.
   (Paras 10–12)

---

BAIL CONDITIONS

The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall:

1. Execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum.

2. Appear before the SHO, Pendurthy Police Station every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. till cognizance.

3. Not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission.

4. Not commit or indulge in any offence.

5. Cooperate with investigation.

6. Not influence or threaten witnesses.

7. Surrender passports, if any, or file affidavits if none.
   (Para 12)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Extension of remand beyond 180 days under the NDPS Act without securing the accused’s physical or virtual presence is illegal.

2. Failure to inform the accused of consideration of remand extension violates Article 21 and vitiates the order.

3. Remand extension orders cannot be passed mechanically and must reflect compliance with constitutional safeguards.