Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case

"The failure to procure the presence of the accused... is gross illegality that violates Article 21" — In a landmark decision delivered on 1st December 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the extension of judicial remand in an NDPS case, citing a grave violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment, rendered by Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1337 & 1350 of 2025, held that the non-production of the accused either physically or virtually at the time of remand extension amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. The petitioners were accordingly granted bail by default.

The ruling arose in a case involving accused persons facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where the Special Judge had extended their remand up to 300 days without ensuring their appearance in court.

“Remand Cannot Be Extended in a Vacuum”: Court Slams Mechanical Detention Without Judicial Scrutiny

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 24 of 2025 by the Pedabayalu Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, and had been under judicial custody. The Trial Court, vide its order dated 13.11.2025, extended their remand under Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act, without producing them physically or virtually, nor informing them of the remand proceedings.

Terming the remand order “grossly illegal and constitutionally infirm,” the High Court observed:

“The impugned order doesn’t reflect that at the time of extension of the remand, the Petitioners were either produced physically or virtually… the learned Trial Court neither secured the presence of the Accused physically nor virtually nor informed the Petitioners that judicial remand was extended.”

The court added that such omissions are not curable procedural irregularities, but serious violations of the due process guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Default Bail Is Not a Generosity, It’s a Right” — High Court Applies Supreme Court’s Ruling in Jigar @ Jimmy Case

Justice Rao grounded his findings in the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973. Quoting extensively from the Apex Court, he reiterated:

“The failure to procure the presence of the accused… is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.”

The Court further cited the Supreme Court’s emphasis that when liberty is curtailed through remand, it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner, and any breach of this process entitles the accused to default bail, especially when the order affects their right to seek such bail under Section 167 CrPC, read with Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act.

“Courts Are Not Rubber Stamps for Police Custody” — Extension of Remand Must Involve Real Judicial Application

Justice Rao emphasized that remand proceedings cannot be reduced to a formality, particularly under stringent statutes like the NDPS Act. The order notes:

“Even at the time of extension of the remand in any other case either by the Magistrate or by the Trial Court, they cannot mechanically pass extension order of remand. The remand extension has to be informed to the Accused either by securing them physically or virtually.”

Holding that the remand had been extended in a judicial vacuum, the Court concluded that the very foundation of continued custody was legally unsustainable, and hence default bail had to be granted.

Bail Allowed, But Liberty Regulated

While setting aside the remand order and granting bail, the Court imposed strict compliance conditions on the petitioners to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation. Justice Rao directed the accused to cooperate with authorities, attend police stations regularly, not leave Andhra Pradesh without permission, and not interfere with the investigation or witnesses.

He further ordered:

“The Petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect.”

These conditions, the Court held, would remain in effect until cognizance is taken by the Trial Court.

Procedural Fairness is Not Optional, Even in Serious Offences

This judgment sends a strong message to subordinate courts dealing with remand extensions under special statutes like the NDPS Act: Constitutional mandates of due process and personal liberty must be strictly observed.

The High Court reminded all trial courts that mechanical extensions of custody, particularly without securing the accused’s presence or providing them an opportunity to be heard, amount to an outright denial of liberty, which cannot be permitted under any guise.

Date of Decision: 01.12.2025