Physical or virtual production and information to the accused at every remand extension—including under the NDPS Act—are essential: any violation is not a mere procedural irregularity but a gross illegality under Article 21. Andhra Pradesh High Court applies and reaffirms the Supreme Court precedent (Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya) as binding law for all subordinate courts and authorities.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLRC/1113/2025 PALLA SRINU Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| CNR | APHC010534122025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench: Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms: Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, 2022) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure—Remand Extension under NDPS Act & Article 21 Constitution |
| Questions of Law | Whether extension of judicial remand without physical/virtual production and adequate information to the accused is valid? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Remand extensions, especially where accused’s right to default bail is impacted, must comply with constitutional safeguards—production (physical or virtual) of accused and information to them before grant of such extension. The absence of such production and information is not a mere procedural irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21. The extension order passed by the lower court, absent such safeguards, is invalid. The trial court has a legal obligation to ensure compliance; any order extending remand mechanically, without accused’s presence or knowledge, is impermissible. This reasoning directly applies the Supreme Court’s law on the point as binding precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat [2022 Supreme (SC) 973] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The constitutional principle that deprivation of liberty must follow fair, reasonable, and robust procedural safeguards as required by Article 21. Supreme Court’s clear holding in Jigar’s case was strictly followed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On the 162nd day of judicial custody, remand extension was sought and granted by the NDPS trial court without securing accused’s physical or virtual presence and without informing accused about the application or the order. No counter was filed by accused before the trial court. The order did not meet the procedural requirements mandated by Supreme Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh; all trial courts handling NDPS and general criminal remand matters. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering identical procedural questions; potential persuasive value nationally. |
| Follows | Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, 2022) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and enforces that every extension of remand—especially where the accused’s default bail right is affected—MUST be with the accused produced either physically or virtually, and the accused must be informed of both the application and order.
- Affirms that failure to comply is not a technical/procedural irregularity, but a substantive illegality amounting to violation of Article 21, rendering the order void.
- Lawyers should ensure trial courts strictly observe these procedural safeguards in all remand matters to avoid invalid remand extensions.
- The judgment is directly precedential for all NDPS and general criminal matters involving remand extension in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court considered whether an extension of remand without ensuring the accused’s presence or informing them about the extension application is lawful.
- The Court meticulously relied on the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022), which held that failure to produce the accused, or to inform them, before extending remand is a gross illegality and not a mere procedural irregularity.
- The rationale is rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, which mandates fair and reasonable procedure before deprivation of liberty. The right to default bail is intrinsically linked to personal liberty, and procedural safeguards are essential.
- The High Court noted that the records did not show any effort to secure the accused’s presence or inform him regarding the extension application or its grant.
- It held that trial courts cannot mechanically grant remand extensions; strict compliance with the presence and information requirement is mandatory.
- The order of lower court extending remand in such a fashion was set aside, and bail was granted subject to detailed conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Extension of remand was ordered without the accused being produced physically or virtually before the trial court.
- The accused was not informed of the application by the public prosecutor or the extension order.
- Such procedure violates Article 21 and the law settled by the Supreme Court in Jigar’s case.
Respondent (State):
- None specifically recorded in the portion extracted.
- No counter filed by the accused; arguments focused on whether legal safeguards were observed.
Factual Background
Remand extension was sought for the petitioner (Accused No.10) on the 162nd day of judicial custody in an NDPS Act case. The application was granted by the Special Court for NDPS offences at Visakhapatnam without securing the accused’s presence (either physically or virtually), and the accused was not informed about the pendency or outcome of the remand extension petition. No counter was filed by the accused in response to the extension application before the trial court. The High Court found that these procedural safeguards, as directed by the Supreme Court, were not followed.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act (as invoked in Jigar) and its interplay with general criminal remand provisions.
- Interpreted the procedural safeguards required under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The judgment reaffirms that the statutory regime under the NDPS Act for extending pretrial custody must be harmonized with constitutional guarantees, especially where accused’s rights to default bail are impacted.
- “Reading in” of procedural fairness as mandated by the Supreme Court to all instances of remand extension.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court mandated that, for all future remand extensions, the trial courts must secure the presence of the accused—either physically or virtually—and inform them regarding the pendency and outcome of the application for such extension.
- Remand extension petitions cannot be disposed of mechanically or in absentia.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s ruling in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya was affirmed and applied as binding.