APHC010224052026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3432/2026 Between:

1. B ISAI BALARAJU, S/O MADHU. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OFSANGAMVALASA VILLAGE, KORRA PANCHAYAT, DUMBRIGUDA MANDAL,ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, AADHAR NO- 2058

1264 3174.

2. T HARADA LINGAMNAIDU, S/O BALAM NAIDU, AGE ABOUT

50YEARS,RESIDENT OF KINCHURU VILLAGE, GONGALI, PADERU, MANDAL, ASRDISTRICT, AADHAR NO-3850 9557 9843.

3. G OLLORI ANIL KUMAR, S/O APPARAO, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENTOF KORRE VILLAGE. DUMBRIGUDA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT, CELL NO-7382663565. AADHAR NO-9413 0501 8263

4. P ANGI ASHOK KUMAR, S/O BABURAO,AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENTOF PANTALACHINTA VILLAGE, DUMBRIGUDA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT,AADHAR NO-7617 8365 7109.

5. K ORRA SAMUEL, S/O AIJUN,AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER,RESIDENT OF PULUGUDA VILLAGE, KITHALANGI PANCHAYATH DUMBRIGUDAMANDAL, ASR DISTRICT,AADHAR NO-5895 6759 438 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, thruSHO Kotauratia Police Station, Visakhapatnam, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. 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, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the order dated 18.03.2026 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.193 of 2026 in Crime No.87 of 2025 of Kotauratla 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 to 5, and other accused beyond 180 days.

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

3. The learned Counsel 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 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 po