Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail, Holds Custody Extension Beyond 180 Days Invalid Under NDPS Act

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the statutory timeline for investigating narcotics cases, ruling that any application for extension of judicial custody beyond 180 days must be adjudicated before the initial period expires to prevent the accrual of a right to bail.

In a proceeding initiated under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the court was hearing a bail plea for three individuals accused of possessing 24 kilograms of ganja under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While the petition for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed as withdrawn due to a separate pending petition, the court focused on the 197-day incarceration of Accused No. 3.

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that the prosecution’s attempt to extend custody post-facto was legally unsustainable. The Bench noted that the charge sheet had not been filed within the stipulated period, and the application for extension was not timely addressed by the Trial Court.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "An application was filed seeking for extension of the judicial custody of the petitioners beyond 180 days. Such application cannot be allowed when the petitioner is in the judicial custody beyond 180 days. That application would have been considered and allowed by the learned Trial Court before completion of 180 days."

Directions Issued to the Accused

The Court has following directions:

"i. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 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 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram;

ii. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet;

iii. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned;

iv. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future;

v. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

vi. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 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 Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If she claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Background

The petitioners were arrested on April 13, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 7 of 2026 at Gurthedu Police Station, involving the alleged possession of 24 kilograms of ganja. By the time the matter reached the High Court, the accused had spent 197 days in judicial custody. The Counsel for the petitioners argued that Accused No. 3 was the sole breadwinner and had been falsely implicated. Conversely, the Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the investigation was ongoing and expressed fears of the accused absconding. However, the court found that the procedural lapse regarding the extension of custody and the fact that the petitioner was a permanent resident with a fixed abode justified the grant of bail subject to stringent conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9232/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:45865
Case Title: Vakada Pawan Kumar Alias Mukka And Others Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 19871