‘Trial courts can’t pass mechanical remand extension order’: Andhra Pradesh High Court grants bail in narcotics case
Justice Rao said that the trial court’s order does not reflect that at the time of extension of the remand, the petitioner was either produced physically or virtually.
Andhra Pradesh High Court was hearing the plea against the trial court remand extension order. (Image generated using AI) The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a trial court’s order extending the judicial remand of an accused in a narcotics case, observing that failing to produce an accused before the court physically or virtually during such proceedings violates the fundamental right to liberty.
Justice Y Lakshmana Rao was hearing a plea against the trial court order under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act extending the period of remand of the accused up to 250 days.
Justice Y Lakshmana Rao said that not securing presence of accused or not informing them about extension of judicial remand violates Article 21. (File Photo)
“The trial court neither secured the presence of the accused physically nor virtually nor informed the petitioner that judicial remand was extended,” the court observed.
Noting that there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court added that, 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 an extension order of remand.
Background
The accused filed a criminal revision case challenging the trial court order extending the period of his remand up to 250 days from the day he was remanded to judicial custody for the first time. The petitioner was accused of the offences under the NDPS Act.
The petitioner had filed the remand extension plea before the trial court on the 161st day of his judicial custody.
Decision
The court noted that the trial court’s order does not reflect that at the time of extension of the remand, the petitioner was either produced physically or virtually.
Stating from the apex court’s Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat decision, the court said that failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and failure to inform him that the
The application made by the public prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered not a mere procedural irregularity, it is a gross illegality that violates the fundamental right of the Accused guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
“The remand extension has to be informed to the accused either by securing him physically or virtually. For the above reasons, the criminal revision case is required to be allowed, as there are merits,” the court held.
Dismissing the trial court’s remand order, the high court ordered that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the case.
Share
