APHC010267672026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4254/2026 Between:

1. P ANGI SADIK, ,S/O. BALABHADRAM, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,R/O.

KINNERLA VILLAGE, KOTHAPALEM PANCHAYAT,CHINTHAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P.

2. S INDERI SUNDAR RAO, S/O. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O.

DABBAGARUVU VILLAGE, KOTHAPALEM PANCHAYAT, CHINTHAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. BOOSARA V N PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4254/2026

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 02.03.2026 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.152 of 2026 in Crime No.11 of 2025 of A. Annavaram 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.5 and 7, and other accused beyond 250 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 AIUR 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 extensi