The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in *Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat*, held that remand extension without physical or virtual production of accused and without informing them of the application is not a violation of Article 21. The precedent mandates strict procedural compliance in remand extensions affecting fundamental rights, binding on all subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLRC/1139/2025 of BISOYI SAHADEV Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| CNR | APHC010550872025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Andhra Pradesh; persuasive outside the state |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Supreme Court ruling in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 Supreme (SC) 973) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law (Article 21) |
| Questions of Law | Whether extension of remand without securing accused’s physical or virtual presence and without informing them renders the order illegal and violative of Article 21; Is such violation a mere procedural irregularity or a gross illegality? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held, following Supreme Court precedent, that when an order extending judicial remand is passed without producing the accused (physically or virtually) and without informing them of the Public Prosecutor’s application, such an order is a gross illegality violating Article 21. The right to default bail is intrinsically connected to the accused’s fundamental rights. Extension orders cannot be made mechanically, and failure to comply with these safeguards cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. The impugned order extending remand without compliance was therefore set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 Supreme (SC) 973) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment quotes and applies the Supreme Court’s direction that deprivation of the right to default bail by such means amounts to violation of the procedure established by law under Article 21; procedural safeguards are integral. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On the 165th day of judicial custody, the prosecution sought remand extension. The trial court extended custody to 250 days but failed to secure the accused’s physical or virtual presence or to inform them of the application. No counter was filed by the accused in the remand extension proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court; trial courts in analogous situations |
| Follows | Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 Supreme (SC) 973) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that producing the accused (physically or virtually) and informing them of remand extension proceedings is a mandatory safeguard, not a dispensable formality.
- Non-compliance with this procedure renders the extension of judicial remand illegal and susceptible to being set aside as a violation of Article 21.
- This judgment directly cites and meticulously applies the Supreme Court’s reasoning, providing a binding local precedent for default bail and remand extension defaults.
- Lawyers should closely examine remand extension orders for compliance with these procedural requirements, as non-compliance may entitle the accused to immediate relief, including bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court identified the core question: whether remand extension without securing the accused’s presence or informing them is legally valid.
- The Court reviewed the trial court record and found no evidence that the petitioners were produced (physically/virtually) or informed during the remand extension process.
- The judgment quotes in detail the Supreme Court’s holding in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya, which states that failure to secure presence/inform the accused is not a procedural irregularity but a gross illegality, violating Article 21.
- The High Court finds the Supreme Court’s reasoning directly applicable: deprivation of the right to default bail by this process is unconstitutional.
- Even if the accused did not file a counter, the trial court must inform them of the remand extension proceedings.
- Orders of remand extension must not be passed mechanically and must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards for the liberty of the accused.
- Consequently, the remand extension order was set aside and bail was granted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners/accused were not produced physically or virtually nor were they informed of the remand extension application.
- Extension of remand without such procedural safeguards amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
Respondent (State/Public Prosecutor):
- Sought extension of the remand period but no counter was filed by the accused.
- No further arguments of substance were detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
The accused were in judicial custody in a case under the NDPS Act. On the 165th day of custody, the prosecution applied for an extension of the remand period. The trial court, without producing the accused physically or virtually and without informing them of the application for extension, extended their judicial remand from 165 days up to 250 days.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined the requirements under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, as well as 438 r/w Sec. 442 of BNSS.
- The judgment specifically applied the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 and the statutory requirement (as per the Supreme Court’s construction) that the accused must be produced and informed during consideration of remand extension applications.
- The judgment does not expand or narrow the provisions, but reiterates their binding interpretation per the Supreme Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural law or innovations were introduced; the Court rigorously applied existing Supreme Court-mandated procedural safeguards.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.