APHC010209082026 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 NO: 3171/2026 Between:

B AIPUREDDY RATNAM, W/O RAJU A/41YRS, R/O THIMMARAJUPALEM VILLAGE, NIDADAVOLE MANDAL. N/O VINAYAGUDIVEEDHI, THOGUMMI VILLAGE, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST., ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi Through S.H.O., Payakaraopeta P.S, Anakapalli Dist., ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

SRINIVAS JARUGU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”), challenging the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2026 in Crime No.208 of 2025 of Payakaraopeta 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1, and other accused up to 260 days.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 with a view to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation. He is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency. A 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 in completing the investigation. In that event, he may not submit any report to the court under clause (bb) to seek extension of time. Thus, for seeking extension of time under clause (bb), the public prosecutor after an independent application of his mind to the request of the investigating agency is required to make a report to the Designated Court indicating therein the p