1. Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District in Crl.M.P.Nos.212 of 2026 in Crime No.264 of 2025 of Kasimkota 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.3 and 4, and other accused beyond 180 days.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994 AIR 2623), wherein, at paragraphs Nos.23, 24 and 31 it is held that extension of time for investigation under clause (bb) can be granted only on a report of the Public Prosecutor, not merely on the request of the Investigating Officer. The Public Prosecutor must independently apply his mind, assess investigation progress, and justify further detention of the accused. He is not a mere forwarding authority; his report must clearly show satisfaction and reasoning for extension. If no proper report is filed or accepted, the accused gets an indefeasible right to default bail. The court must ensure strict compliance, as extension affects personal liberty, and the accused must be given an opportunity to oppose it.

4. By relying on the judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur 1st supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2010 (1) SCR 555), at paragraph No.11 held that applications for extension cannot be treated as valid unless they qualify as a report of the Public Prosecutor under Section 36A(4). The Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority, not part of the investigating agency. He must apply his own mind and assess the progress of investigation before recommending extension. His report must clearly state reasons for further detention and justify the need for additional time. A mere forwarding of the Investigating Officer’s request is insufficient; such a request cannot substitute a proper report of the Public Prosecutor.

5. As seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court extending the remand period beyond 180 days, the learned Public Prosecutor has not applied his independent mind while filing the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has not filed any report as envisaged under Section 36A(4) proviso of ‘the NDPS Act’. The petition filed by the learned Public Prosecutor does not disclose whether he was satisfied with the progress of the investigation or whether he had considered the entire material of investigation for grant of further time to complete the investigation. However, the learned Trial Court has also not followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 Supreme (SC) 973) and failed to inform the accused of the extension of the remand period beyond 180 days either through virtual mode or physically.

6. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur 1st supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in categorical terms, held that the Public Prosecutor concerned, or the Prosecutor in charge of the case, ought to have considered the request of the Investigating Officer and, upon independent application of mind, filed a report along with the application seeking extension of time. In the present case, there is no averment in the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor to show that he had applied his mind or that he was satisfied that the progress of the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the grant of further time to complete the investigation was necessary. Further, more importantly, the learned Trial Court failed to assign any special reasons for the detention of the Accused/Petitioners beyond the period of 180 days.

7. This Court, by order dated 16.06.2026 in Criminal Revision Case No.562 of 2026, enlarged the Accused No.2 on bail with some stringent conditions. The present Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are also standing on a similar footing as the other Accused.

8. Following the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur 1st supra and Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia 2nd supra, the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2026 is liable to be set aside.

9. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed with the following conditions:

               i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli.

               ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Kasimkota Police Station, Anakapalli District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court.

               iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

               iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

               v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required.

               vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

               vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

10. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.