In a significant ruling that reinforces procedural safeguards for the accused, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to three individuals in a case registered under the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court held that extending the period of judicial remand without informing the accused, either by securing their physical or virtual presence, constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court Condemns Mechanical Extension of Remand
The bench of Justice Y Lakshmana Rao was adjudicating two criminal revision petitions that challenged an order passed by a sessions court in Visakhapatnam. The sessions court had extended the remand period of the accused persons up to 300 days under the NDPS Act. The High Court scrutinized the procedure followed and made a critical observation.
The court noted that on the 156th day of the accused's judicial custody, an application for remand extension was filed before the trial court. However, the trial court's order did not reflect that the accused were produced—either physically or through virtual means—at the time this extension was granted. Justice Rao emphasized that courts cannot mechanically pass orders for remand extension. "The remand extension has to be informed to the Accused either by securing them physically or virtually," the order stated, allowing the revision petitions on merit.
A Gross Illegality, Not a Mere Irregularity
In a powerful affirmation of constitutional rights, the court declared that not securing the presence of the accused or failing to inform them about the extension of their judicial custody is a grave infringement. "Not securing the presence of the accused or not informing them about extension of judicial remand violates Article 21 of the Constitution," the order read.
The judgment leaned on a precedent set by the Supreme Court of India. The High Court recalled the top court's holding that the failure to procure an accused's presence and inform them about a prosecutor's application for time extension is "not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21." The Andhra Pradesh High Court found that this essential procedural safeguard was not followed in the present case, leading to a clear violation of the accused's fundamental rights.
Bail Granted, Procedure Reaffirmed
As a direct consequence of identifying this fundamental rights violation, the High Court allowed the criminal revision cases and granted bail to the three accused. The decision underscores a vital legal principle: stringent laws like the NDPS Act must be enforced within the framework of constitutional guarantees and due process.
The ruling serves as a crucial reminder to all magistrates and trial courts to meticulously adhere to procedural justice. It mandates that any decision affecting an individual's liberty, such as extending custody, must be communicated directly to the person concerned, ensuring their right to be heard and to challenge the action is not rendered moot.
