Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Okadadam Lalitha Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 July, 2026
APHC010300522026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 722/2026
Between:
1. OKADADAM LALITHA KUMARI, D/O CHINNABBAI,W/O A.RAVI
KUMAR, 29 YEARS,N/O CHERAPALLI VILLAGE, LOTHUGEDDA
JUNCTION,CHINTAPALLI MANDAL, R/O SAINAGAR,CHINTAPALLIV
MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT. .
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public ProsecutorHigh
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K K KOMALAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order passed by
the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for
Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam1 in Crl.M.P.No.492 of
2026 in Cr.No.158/2025 of Nathavaram Police Station on 24.06.2026
1 the Trial Court
2
extending the period of remand up to 250 days from the day the
Petitioner/Accused No.7 was remanded to judicial custody for the first time.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor.
3. Mr. K.K. Komalan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that
Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order extending the
judicial custody of the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in Crime No.158 of 2025, is
unsustainable as it was passed mechanically without recording reasons, in
violation of Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act.,’) and Articles 21 and 22 of
the Constitution. The learned Judge failed to note that investigation has
substantially progressed, no specific grounds were shown for further
detention, and the prosecution did not file a proper report of the Public
Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and necessity of continued
custody, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra2. The
Public Prosecutor is not a mere forwarding agency but must independently
apply his mind and submit a valid report, failing which the Designated Court
has no jurisdiction to extend custody, and the accused acquires an
indefeasible right to bail. The Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case. He contends that the Petitioner is a woman aged about
29 years and is suffering from palpitations and anaemia. It is alleged by the
prosecution that the Petitioner acted as a pilot on a scooty. The petitioner has
2
(1994) 4 SCC 602
3
been in judicial custody for the past 221 days. The impugned order, being
non‑speaking and mechanical, violates constitutional safeguards and if
allowed to stand would cause grave prejudice to the Petitioner, hence
deserves to be set aside and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case.
4. Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently
opposed the revision and submits that the order of the learned Special Judge
is perfectly justified and sustainable in law, as the report filed under Section
36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ clearly demonstrates independent scrutiny and
application of mind. The Incharge Additional Public Prosecutor before the
learned Special Court examined the seizure proceedings, FIR, case diaries,
remand reports, statements of witnesses, and progress reports, and upon
such assessment was satisfied that substantial progress had been achieved in
the investigation, including examination of ten witnesses and completion of
inventory, while crucial aspects such as call data records, verification of supply
chain and conspiracy angle, tracing of absconding accused, and inter‑state
agency coordination remain pending, unless the remand of Accused Nos.1 to
8 is extended beyond 180 days, the investigation would be seriously
prejudiced and the larger conspiracy behind the seizure of 74 kgs of ganja
would remain untraced.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the law as laid
down in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra makes it clear that the Public
Prosecutor is not a mere forwarding agency but must apply his mind, which
has been duly done in the present case, and the report discloses specific
4
reasons and progress warranting extension. Therefore, the impugned order
does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality but is a reasoned exercise of
judicial discretion safeguarding the interests of justice. Hence, it is urged that
the Criminal Revision Case be dismissed.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
7. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
construing clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, underscored that the legislative
mandate requires the extension of time for investigation to be sought only “on
the report of the Public Prosecutor” and not at the behest of the investigating
officer. The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor, being an
independent statutory authority and not a mere adjunct of the police, is
duty-bound to apply his mind to the progress of the investigation and the
justification for further detention before submitting such a report. It was
categorically held that the Public Prosecutor is neither a “post office” nor a
“forwarding agency” of the investigating officer, and his report must disclose,
on its face, conscious satisfaction with the investigation’s progress and the
necessity of continued custody. The Court further clarified that in the absence
of a valid report under clause (bb), or where the Designated Court declines
extension, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to bail by default, which
cannot be defeated by extraneous considerations. Thus, the jurisprudential
thrust of the ruling is that the liberty of the citizen must be zealously
5
safeguarded, and any curtailment thereof through extension of custody must
strictly conform to the statutory safeguards envisaged under Section
20(4)(bb).
8. In Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana3, the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at paragraph No.11 authoritatively elucidated that Section 36A(4) of
‘the NDPS Act.,’ embodies the legislative mandate of expeditious and diligent
investigation, ensuring that an accused is not subjected to indefinite or
protracted incarceration on account of investigative lethargy or administrative
indifference. The provision contemplates that while the investigating agency
must ordinarily complete the investigation within the prescribed statutory
period, any prayer for extension of time is not to be granted as a matter of
course. Rather, the investigating agency must first withstand the objective
scrutiny of the Public Prosecutor, who, being an independent statutory
functionary distinct from and not subservient to the investigating machinery, is
obligated to undertake a conscious, impartial, and independent evaluation of
the progress of the investigation and the necessity for continued detention of
the accused. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor is required to place before
the Designated Court a reasoned and substantive report, reflecting due
application of mind, delineating the progress achieved in the investigation,
disclosing compelling and legally sustainable grounds justifying further
custody, and demonstrating why additional time is indispensable for
completion of the investigation. Such report must be accompanied by the
3
2024 SCC OnLine P&H 6623
6
Investigating Officer’s request and should, on its very face, manifest that the
Public Prosecutor has independently assessed the material placed before him
and arrived at a bona fide satisfaction regarding the necessity of seeking
extension, thereby preserving the statutory safeguards against arbitrary
deprivation of personal liberty.
9. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,4, wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48,
it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of
prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the
proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as
criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of
trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that
every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars,
including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against
him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure
transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.
10. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra
Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the
Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to
the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The
petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any
other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An
4
2026 SCC Online 188
7
application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the
bench with the necessary information.
11. In the present case, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the
pendency of the previous antecedents against her, though the same are
reported by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.
12. Section 36‑A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ embodies a special statutory
scheme, permitting extension of the period of investigation beyond 180 days
only upon the independent report of the Public Prosecutor. This safeguard
ensures that the liberty of the accused is not curtailed at the whims of the
investigating agency but only after objective scrutiny by an independent
statutory authority. In the present case, the Incharge Additional Public
Prosecutor had examined the seizure proceedings, FIR, case diaries, remand
reports, statements of witnesses, and progress reports, and upon such
assessment, recorded his satisfaction that substantial progress had been
achieved and further investigation was indispensable. Thus, the statutory
requirement was duly complied with.
13. The investigation was still in progress and several crucial aspects
remained incomplete. These included obtaining call data records, verifying the
source and supply chain of the contraband, tracing absconding accused,
collecting inter‑state and inter‑agency information, and examining additional
witnesses. The contraband seized was 74 kilograms of ganja, a commercial
quantity under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and the larger conspiracy behind its
transportation was yet to be unearthed. Unless the remand was extended, the
8
investigation would be seriously prejudiced and the truth behind the offence
would remain concealed.
14. It is emphasized that the Public Prosecutor had not acted as a mere
forwarding agency but had independently scrutinized the material and applied
his mind, as mandated in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra. The report
disclosed specific reasons and progress warranting extension, thereby
satisfying the twin conditions under Section 36‑A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The
precedents relied upon by the Petitioner arose in different factual contexts and
did not apply to the present case where the Public Prosecutor’s report was
substantive and reasoned.
15. It is observed that the learned Trial Court had carefully considered the
report of the Public Prosecutor, the counters filed by the accused, and the
material on record before arriving at its conclusion. The learned Trial Court
had assigned cogent reasons for extending the remand, and its order reflected
due application of judicial discretion. It is also observed that the Petitioner had
criminal antecedents, having been involved in similar offences in 2017, which
further justified the cautious approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in
refusing bail and extending custody.
16. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur supra it is held that Public Prosecutor’s
independent report mandatory; Investigating Officer application alone
insufficient. In Sanjay Dutt v. State5, it is held that accused must be produced
when extension is considered. In Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Narcotics Control
Bureau6 and Hitendra supra applies to Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’
and Public Prosecutor cannot act as post office. In M. Ravindran v.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence7, it is held that invalid extension leads
to enforceable right of default bail. In Jigar v. State of Gujarat8, reaffirms
independent Public Prosecutor report, application of mind, and
notice/production requirements.
17. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an
application by the Investigating Officer is not the statutory application
contemplated by the proviso to Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act.’ Even though
the Investigating Officer has not submitted a proposal to the Public
Prosecutor, the Court can extend time only on the report of the Public
Prosecutor which independently scrutinized the material and record regarding
the progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond 180
days.
18. Finally, this Court reiterates the jurisprudential thrust of Section 36‑A(4)
of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ that while investigation must ordinarily be completed within
the statutory period, extension of time is permissible only upon a reasoned
report of the Public Prosecutor, reflecting independent application of mind and
compelling grounds. In the present case, those conditions were satisfied, and
the learned Trial Court rightly extended the remand up to 250 days. The
impugned order did not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality, but was a lawful
exercise safeguarding the interests of justice.
6
(2009) 17 SCC 631
7
(2021) 2 SCC 485
8
(2023) 6 SCC 484
10
19. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated:21.07.2026
VTS
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
