Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Failure to procure the presence of the Accused either physically or virtually before the Court and failure to inform him / her that the application made by the Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity and it is a gross illegality that violates the fundamental right of the Accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the failure to produce an accused person before the court, either physically or virtually, during the consideration of an application for extension of remand time is a "gross illegality."

A Single Judge bench of Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed that such an omission violates the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby entitling the petitioner to default bail if the statutory period for investigation has expired without a charge sheet being filed.

The petitioner, identified as Accused No. 2, was embroiled in a criminal case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at the Mothugudem Police Station. He approached the High Court through a Criminal Revision Case seeking to set aside an order passed by the Special Judge for NDPS cases at Rajamahendravaram, which had extended his remand period. The petitioner contended that the extension was granted in his absence and without a valid report from the Public Prosecutor, thus entitling him to default bail.

The primary question before the court was whether the extension of time for investigation and remand granted by the trial court in the absence of the accused was legally sustainable. The court was also called upon to determine if such a procedural lapse constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and warrants the grant of default bail.

Mandatory Production Of Accused During Remand Extension

The Court emphasized that the presence of the accused is not a mere formality when the prosecution seeks to extend the period of investigation beyond the standard statutory timeframe. It noted that the accused must be informed and produced before the court to ensure they have an opportunity to oppose such an extension. The bench highlighted that this requirement is rooted in the principles of natural justice and the protection of personal liberty.

"Accused was not present before the Court either physically or virtually, at the time of extension of time for remand."

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedent In Jigar Alias Jimmy Case

While adjudicating the matter, Justice Pratapa placed heavy reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat. The High Court reiterated that the apex court has categorially held that failing to procure the presence of the accused during such proceedings is not a simple procedural error but a substantial illegality. The court noted that this failure directly impacts the constitutional safeguards provided to an incarcerated individual.

"It is a gross illegality that violates the fundamental right of the Accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Violation Of Article 21 And Right To Default Bail

The Court observed that the statutory period for investigation had been completed and no charge sheet had been filed by the investigating agency. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which the court referred to alongside the NDPS Act's provisions, the right to default bail becomes indefeasible once the statutory period expires. The court found that since the extension of remand was itself illegal due to the absence of the accused, the detention beyond the initial period lacked legal sanction.

Scope Of Judicial Oversight In NDPS Remand

The bench further noted that the trial court's order did not sufficiently disclose the specific investigative steps that remained to be undertaken, which is a prerequisite for granting an extension. The High Court concurred with the petitioner’s argument that a Coordinate Bench had previously set aside similar orders where the accused were placed on the same footing. The State, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, fairly conceded that the petitioner was indeed not produced during the impugned hearing.

"Admittedly, statutory period of also completed and no charge sheet has been filed. In that view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside."

Final Directions and Conditions for Bail

Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated February 6, 2026, passed by the Special Judge. The Court ordered the enlargement of the petitioner on bail subject to the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Station House Officer every Sunday and was restrained from committing any further offenses or tampering with evidence.

The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards in criminal law, especially those involving the extension of detention, are inextricably linked to the fundamental right to liberty. By classifying the non-production of an accused during remand extension hearings as a "gross illegality," the High Court has ensured that the prosecution and trial courts adhere strictly to constitutional mandates even in serious offenses like those under the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: 28 April 2026