In a landmark decision emphasizing the importance of procedural integrity, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, granted bail to Pangi Prasanjit Das (A.1) in Criminal Petition No. 6709 of 2024. The court underscored that failure to adhere to due process can invalidate extended detentions, particularly in sensitive cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the arrest of Pangi Prasanjit Das and others on January 12, 2024, by the Pedabayalu Police in Alluri Sitharama Raju District. Police seized 200 kg of ganja from the accused’s vehicle at Patha Rudakota Junction, a volume classified as a “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act. As such, the charges included serious offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Act. Following the arrest, the accused were remanded to judicial custody, with an initial detention period capped at 180 days for investigation completion.
However, the investigation was incomplete by the 180-day mark, prompting the prosecution to request an extension to one year, which the Special Judge granted. This decision would later form the basis for critical procedural challenges brought forth by the defence.
Legal Issues and Arguments
Represented by Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, the petitioner argued that the extension of custody failed to meet the NDPS Act’s stringent procedural requirements. One of the primary contentions was that the extension application was heard without securing the physical or virtual presence of the accused, violating Supreme Court rulings in cases like Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022) and M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021), which mandate the accused’s presence in such hearings.
Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel argued procedural lapses during the seizure and sampling process. According to the NDPS Act’s Section 52A, inventories and sampling must be conducted in the presence of a magistrate to ensure evidentiary integrity. The defence highlighted that this procedure was disregarded in the present case, undermining the validity of the seized material as evidence.
Prosecution’s Position
The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the commercial quantity of ganja warranted strict standards under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which presumes the accused’s involvement unless convincingly rebutted. The state emphasized that the extended detention was legally justified, given the volume of the seized contraband and the investigative needs of the case.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Krupa Sagar, however, observed that procedural fairness is non-negotiable, even in cases involving serious narcotics charges. Citing Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya, the court stated, “Mere notice to the accused is insufficient; it is mandatory to have the physical or virtual presence of the accused while the Court considers the application for extension of the period of investigation.” The court further noted that neglecting to secure the accused’s presence effectively denied them a fair opportunity to contest the extension.
The court also highlighted the procedural lapse regarding the seizure’s compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, questioning the evidentiary validity of the contraband seized without magistrate oversight. Observing that the petitioner had been in custody for nearly 296 days, the court determined that these procedural errors justified the grant of bail.
Final Order and Bail Conditions
The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to Pangi Prasanjit Das under stringent conditions, including:
– Posting a personal bond of ₹25,000 along with two sureties.
– Bi-monthly attendance at the Investigating Officer’s office.
– Compliance with all court requirements during pre-trial and trial proceedings.
The petitioner is prohibited from influencing witnesses or engaging in any criminal activity during this period.
