In a significant ruling that underscores the sanctity of personal liberty, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in a narcotics case and set aside a trial court's order that extended his judicial remand. The court strongly criticized the practice of passing "mechanical" remand extension orders without ensuring the accused is present.
Court Condemns Violation of Fundamental Right
Justice Y Lakshmana Rao, presiding over the case, delivered the verdict on January 8, 2026. The court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court's decision to extend the judicial remand of the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for up to 250 days.
The High Court found a grave violation of the accused's fundamental rights. Justice Rao observed that the trial court's order did not show that the petitioner was produced physically or virtually at the time of the remand extension. The court stated that this failure is not a minor procedural lapse but a "gross illegality" that infringes upon the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Case Background and Judicial Reasoning
The accused, facing charges under the NDPS Act, had filed the petition against the remand extension order. The trial court had passed the order on the 161st day of his judicial custody, extending it further.
Justice Rao, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in the Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat case, emphasized the mandatory legal requirement. "The remand extension has to be informed to the accused either by securing him physically or virtually," the court held. It ruled that magistrates or trial courts cannot simply pass extension orders as a routine formality without this crucial step.
Bail Granted and Broader Implications
Concluding that the petition had merit, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the criminal revision case. It dismissed the trial court's remand extension order and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the case.
This judgment serves as a critical reminder to lower courts about the strict procedural safeguards that must be followed in criminal proceedings. It reinforces that the right to liberty cannot be suspended through mechanical judicial processes, even in serious cases under stringent laws like the NDPS Act. The ruling mandates that every accused must be informed and given an opportunity to be heard, either in person or via virtual means, before their detention is extended.
