Failure to produce an accused during remand extension proceedings violates procedural safeguards and infringes on fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) challenging the judgment dated 08.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.956/2025 in Cr.No.11/2025 of Pedabayalu Police Station on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sri Ramineni Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the impugned Order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.956 of 2025 in Cr.No.11 of 2025 of Pedabayalu Police Station, rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, is manifestly illegal, procedurally irregular, and patently unsustainable in law. The said Order warrants judicial interference and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The learned Special Judge has erred in law and on facts by failing to adhere to the binding procedural safeguards enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in relation to the production of the accused during consideration of extension petitions under Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The denial of an opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard either through physical presence or via electronic video linkage constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. It is submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record any substantive material or documentary evidence to establish the stage of investigation. The extension petition is bereft of any cogent reasoning or demonstrable progress in investigation, and the learned Special Judge has failed to scrutinize the same with the requisite judicial rigour. The absence of a detailed progress report and failure to articulate specific grounds for seeking extension renders the petition inherently defective. The Hon’ble Apex Court has unequivocally held that within thirty days of seizure, the investigating agency must move an application under Section 52A of ‘the NDPS Act’ before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate for certification of inventory, photographs, and samples. The failure to adhere to this statutory mandate renders the entire investigation procedurally infirm and legally untenable.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the remand report unequivocally reveals that the samples were drawn at the scene of arrest by the police officer, without any subsequent certification under Section 52A of ‘the NDPS Act’. Given the stringent procedural framework of ‘the NDPS Act’, any extension of time under Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ in the face of such illegality would amount to judicial endorsement of a flawed and careless investigation, thereby infringing upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submits that the Respondent/Public Prosecutor has failed to discharge the statutory obligation of furnishing a comprehensive written report detailing the progress of investigation and the necessity for further custodial detention. The Petitioner was neither produced nor informed about the pendency of the extension petition, which is in direct contravention of the dictum laid down in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat , 2022 Supreme (SC) 973 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized the imperative of ensuring the accused’s participation during such proceedings. The learned Special Magistrate at Visakhapatnam has failed to appreciate that the continued detention of the Petitioner, in the absence of procedural compliance and judicial safeguards, constitutes a serious infraction of his substantive rights and a violation of his human dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Order, i