Default Bail | Mandatory Presence of Accused Crucial in Investigation Extension Applications: Andhra Pradesh Grants Bail in NDPS Case Involving 200kg Ganja

In a crucial judgement,  Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to Alluri Sitharama Raju (Petitioner/A.1) in Alluri Sitharama Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 6709 of 2024. The case revolved around the seizure of 200 kilograms of ganja, classified as a commercial quantity, which implicates stringent conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The Court's decision to grant bail was grounded in procedural lapses, particularly the lack of physical or virtual presence of the accused during critical hearings for extending the investigation period.
The petitioner, along with co-accused (A.3 and A.4), was apprehended on January 12, 2024, when authorities found a large quantity of ganja in their vehicle. They were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. According to Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the period for investigation in cases involving commercial quantities can be extended up to one year if the prosecution applies before 180 days and demonstrates investigative progress. In this case, the Special Judge approved the extension to one year despite procedural challenges raised by the petitioner.
Violation of Section 52A of NDPS Act: The petitioner argued that the investigation procedure violated Section 52A, which mandates the presence of a magistrate during the inventory preparation and sampling of seized substances. The Court found no evidence in the remand report to confirm compliance with this provision, undermining the prosecution’s case.
Presence of Accused during Extension Hearings: The Court underscored the mandatory nature of ensuring the accused’s physical or virtual presence during hearings related to investigative time extensions. Relying on Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat and other precedents, the Court observed that mere notice to the accused is insufficient when extending investigation periods; their presence is required to fulfill due process.
Concurrent Hearing of Default Bail Petition and Extension Application: The Special Judge had extended the investigation period without addressing a previously filed default bail application by the petitioner. The High Court emphasized that the Special Judge should have heard the extension and bail applications in sequence, as an extended period invalidates a default bail request. Citing M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Court noted that procedural consistency in hearing both applications simultaneously is crucial to uphold fairness in judicial process.
Acknowledging these procedural lapses, the High Court concluded that the presumption against bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had been sufficiently rebutted. Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar stated that the procedural violations presented “effective rebuttal to the presumption raised against the petitioner,” thereby justifying regular bail. The Court granted bail with conditions, including monthly attendance, cooperation with the investigation, and prohibition from influencing witnesses.
The Court's decision reaffirms the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards, particularly the accused’s presence in sensitive hearings under the NDPS Act. The order strengthens procedural integrity in cases involving severe penalties and reflects judicial caution in upholding individual rights even in high-stakes narcotics cases.

Date of Decision: November 5, 2024