ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The application is under section 438 read with section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’ for short) with a prayer to set aside the order rejecting remand matter in respect of the accused in NDPS Case No.10 of 2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 28.01.2026.

2. The applicant is Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Inteligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit (AZU). The petitioner had approached the Additional Sessions Court, Ahmedabad making a prayer on 20.01.2026 for the custodial interrogation under their remad of the accused.

3. The facts stated that the charge-sheet was filed vide NDPS Case No.10 of 2025 dated 11.02.2025, whereby the present respondent No.2 – Kevin Nileshbhai Khei, was arraigned as accused No.2. Warrant of arrest was issued by the NDPS Special Court under section 70 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the ‘NDPS Act” for short), and as per the direction was produced before the NDPS Special Court. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 20, 23, 28, 29 read with section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

4. The Intelligence Officer (DRI) AZU, Ahmedabad stated that the applicant remained absconding and failed to join the investigation. A lookout circular (LOC) was issued by the office and accordingly was intercepted by Imigration Authority at Calcutta Airport on 08.01.2026. A fresh ‘warrant of arrest” under section 70 of the NDPS Act was issued by the City Sessions Court, NDPS Special Court, Ahmedabad directing the officer to arrest and produce him before the NDPS Court and accordingly, on the arrest of the applicant on 09.01.2026 was produced before the Court.

5. By moving the application on 20.01.2026 remand of the accused was asked for on the ground that during the course of further investigation, it revealed that the accused was associated with several international drug handlers and also had domestic collaborators, thus, DRI wanted to unearth the connection with an aim to dismantle the wider international drug syndicate by getting further details from the accused.

6. The custodial interrogation by way of remand was asked on the ground:

(i) to identify other international drug handlers;

(ii) to identify domestic collaborators;

(ii) reconstruct the completed chain of smuggling operation.

7. Thus, on that facts, basis and circumstances, the remand of the respondent no.2 was asked by the DRI Ahmedabad Zonal unit for the period of 3 days.

8. Learned advocate Mr.P.B.Khambholja appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that on 08.01.2026, the respondent was arrested from Calcutta and was brought to the Court on 09.01.2026 and at that time, the applicant DRI had asked for remand which was granted for 2 days. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja stated that certain confessional statements were recorded of the respondent and stated that the grounds on which the remand was asked for by the DRI was recorded by the Sessions Court and accordingly 2 days remand was granted. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja has submitted that the prosecution agency has sufficient opportunity, at that time, to deal with those issues which they found during the investigation and stated that the application Exhibit-10 was rejected by the Sessions Court on 28.01.2026 as was moved on the same grounds as was raised earlier when two day remand of the accused was granted and after a very long period, that order has been challenged before this Court by filing the revision only on 23.03.2026. Learned advocate Mr.Khambholja submitted that as per the provision of Section 187 of the BNSS, any prayer of remand could be made only upto 40 or 60 days, as the case may be of the detention and stated that the delay in filing the application itself would prejudice the statutory right of the respondent.

9. Countering the same, learned Standing Counsel Ms.Ketki P. Jha submitted relyin