Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Public prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and is appointed by the State under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is not a part of the investigating agency. He is an independent statutory authority. The public prosecutor is expected to independently apply his mind to the request of the investigating agency before submitting a report to the court for extension of time... He is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency, " Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Public Prosecutor must demonstrate an independent application of mind and record personal satisfaction regarding the progress of an investigation before seeking an extension of remand beyond 180 days under the NDPS Act.

A bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, in a judgment dated June 19, 2026, observed that the Prosecutor cannot act as a mere "post office" or "forwarding agency" for the investigating officer's requests. The court emphasized that the report submitted for extension is a vital document as its acceptance directly affects the personal liberty of the accused.

The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 1 in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, challenged an order passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli. The trial court had allowed a petition filed by the prosecution under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, thereby extending the remand period of the petitioner and other accused beyond the statutory limit of 180 days. The petitioner sought to set aside this extension and be enlarged on bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Public Prosecutor's application for the extension of remand complied with the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the trial court failed in its duty by overlooking the absence of an independent report from the Prosecutor and failing to assign special reasons for continued detention.

Public Prosecutor As An Independent Statutory Authority

The High Court placed heavy reliance on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, noting that the legislature purposely did not leave the power to seek extension of time to an investigating officer. The bench observed that the investigating agency must submit itself to the scrutiny of the Public Prosecutor in the first instance, who must then satisfy himself about the progress of the investigation before approaching the court.

"The public prosecutor may or may not agree with the reasons given by the investigating officer for seeking extension of time and may find that the investigation had not progressed in the proper manner or that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay."

Mandatory Requirements Of The Prosecutor’s Report

Justice Rao highlighted that for a valid extension under Section 36A(4), the Prosecutor's report must disclose on its face that he has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The bench noted that the report must indicate the progress of the investigation and provide specific justifications for keeping the accused in further custody. A mere reproduction of the investigating officer’s application by the Prosecutor does not constitute a valid report under the law.

"The report of the public prosecutor, therefore, is not merely a formality but a very vital report, because the consequence of its acceptance affects the liberty of an accused and it must, therefore, strictly comply with the requirements."

Consequences Of Filing An Improper Extension Report

The court further noted that in the absence of an appropriate report by the Public Prosecutor, a Designated Court has no jurisdiction to deny an accused their "indefeasible right" to be released on default bail. Citing the Apex Court's ruling in Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, the bench reiterated that the grant of extension is neither a formality nor automatic, and procedural lapses entitle the accused to seek release if they are prepared to furnish bail bonds.

"Where the Designated Court declines to grant such an extension, the right to be released on bail on account of the 'default' of the prosecution becomes indefeasible."

Trial Court’s Failure To Follow Procedural Safeguards

Examining the impugned order, the High Court found that the Public Prosecutor had failed to file a report as envisaged under the proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The bench observed that the petition filed did not disclose whether the Prosecutor was satisfied with the investigation's progress or had considered the entire material. Additionally, the trial court had failed to follow the mandate in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, which requires the court to inform the accused of the extension of remand.

"In the present case, there is no averment in the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor to show that he had applied his mind... Further, more importantly, the learned Trial Court failed to assign any special reasons for the detention of the Accused/Petitioner beyond the period of 180 days."

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case and set aside the trial court's order dated May 5, 2026. The petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties. The court imposed several conditions, including a requirement for the petitioner to appear before the Kasimkota Police Station every Saturday and a prohibition against leaving the district limits without prior permission. The ruling reinforces the principle that statutory safeguards in special laws like the NDPS Act must be strictly construed to protect the constitutional right to liberty.

Date of Decision: 19 June 2026