Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Public Prosecutor must independently apply his mind, assess investigation progress, and justify further detention of the accused. He is not a mere forwarding authority; his report must clearly show satisfaction and reasoning for extension," High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling, held that the extension of investigation and remand beyond the statutory period of 180 days under the NDPS Act cannot be granted based on a mere request by the Investigating Officer.

A bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that the Public Prosecutor must file an independent report demonstrating a thorough application of mind regarding the progress of the investigation and the specific necessity for further detention.

The petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in a case registered under the NDPS Act at Kasimkota Police Station, challenged an order passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli. The Trial Court had allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, thereby extending their remand period beyond the initial 180 days. The petitioners contended that this extension was granted without following the mandatory legal safeguards established by the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the court was whether an extension of remand beyond 180 days under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act can be granted without an independent report from the Public Prosecutor. The court also examined whether the Trial Court's failure to assign special reasons for continued detention and the lack of notice to the accused regarding the extension rendered the order liable to be set aside.

Public Prosecutor Is Not A Mere Forwarding Authority

The Court, while analyzing the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, emphasized that the Public Prosecutor occupies a unique statutory position. Relying on the landmark judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that the Prosecutor is not part of the investigating agency but an independent statutory authority.

PP Must Independently Assess Investigation Progress

The bench observed that the Public Prosecutor is required to independently apply his mind to the case diary and the progress of the investigation. It was held that a mere forwarding of the Investigating Officer’s request is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Section 36A(4). The Prosecutor’s report must clearly articulate the reasons for the delay and justify why further detention of the accused is essential.

"The Public Prosecutor must independently apply his mind, assess investigation progress, and justify further detention of the accused. He is not a mere forwarding authority; his report must clearly show satisfaction and reasoning for extension."

Failure To File Proper Report Under Section 36A(4)

Upon perusing the impugned order, the Court found that the Public Prosecutor had failed to file a report as envisaged under the law. The petition filed before the Trial Court did not disclose whether the Prosecutor was personally satisfied with the investigation's progress or if he had considered the entire material available on record before seeking more time.

Mandatory Requirement To Inform Accused Of Extension

The Court further highlighted a procedural lapse regarding the rights of the accused. Citing the Apex Court's decision in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, Justice Rao noted that the Trial Court failed to inform the accused of the application for extension of remand. The Court held that such an omission is fatal to the prosecution's request for further detention.

"The learned Trial Court has also not followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat and failed to inform the accused of the extension of the remand period beyond 180 days either through virtual mode or physically."

Absence Of Special Reasons For Continued Detention

The High Court observed that the Trial Court's order lacked "special reasons" for the continued detention of the petitioners beyond 180 days. It held that since the extension affects personal liberty, strict compliance with procedural requirements is non-negotiable. If a proper report is not filed or if the court fails to record satisfaction, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail.

Following the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order. The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the petitioners were granted bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties. The Court imposed several conditions, including weekly appearances before the Station House Officer and the surrender of passports, to ensure cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

Date of Decision: 22 June 2026