APHC010196442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 2951 AND 3205 of 2026

1.CRL.P.NO: 2951/2026:

Between:

1. PARESH BISWAS, S/O. SRI BHARATH BISWAS, AGE 31, CASTE SC -

BENGALI,KAMWADA VILLAGE, M.V. 29, MALKANGIH DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE.

2. RABINDRA KHARA, S/O. KHAGESWAR KHARA, A/20, C/ST-DORA, NUATEKHPADA,RALEGADA, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE.

3. JAGADEESH VISWAS, , S/O. SRI BHARATH BISWAS, AGE 37, CASTE SC - BENGALI,KAMWADA VILLAGE, M.V. 29, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE.

4. MURLA LAXMANARAO, S/O. KASULARAO, A/24, C/ST-KONDA REDDY,GUMMIREVULU VILLAGE, DARAKONDA PANCHAYATI, ALLURI SITARAMARAJU DISTRICT

5. SAKHANATH RAY, S/O. RAGHUNADH ROY, A/50, C/SC-BENGALI, KAMWADAVILLAGE, M.V.29, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 TO 6 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Gangavaram P.SRep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.CRL.P.NO: 3205/2026:

Between:

NAKKA SIVA PRASAD,, S/O. RAMANA, AGE. 25 YEARS, D-NO. 4-116, DRIVERS COLONY, GOKAVARAM (V) AND (M), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer Gangavaram P.S, Rep. by Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

G SREE VATSAV Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as they arise out of one crime, although the Petitioners are different.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the NDPS Act, Rajamahendravaram, in Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2026 in Crime No.78 of 2025 of Gangavaram Police Station, whereby the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’) was allowed, extending the remand period of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7, and other accused beyond 180 days.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsels for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 AIR 2623, wherein, at paragraphs Nos.23, 24 and 31 it is held as under:

“23... We may at this stage, also on a plain reading of clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20, point out that the Legislature has provided for seeking extension of time for completion of investigation on a report of the public prosecutor. The Legislature did not purposely leave it to an investigating officer to make an application for seeking extension of time from the court. This provision is in tune with the legislative intent to have the investigations completed expeditiously and not to allow an accused to be kept in continued detention during unnecessary prolonged investigation at the whims of the police. The Legislature expects that the investigation must be completed with utmost promptitude but where it becomes necessary to seek some more time for completion of the investigation, the investigating agency must submit itself to the scrutiny of the public prosecutor in the first instance and satisfy him about the progress of the investigation and furnish reasons for seeking further custody of an accused. A public prosecutor is an important officer of the State Gove