Criminal Revision — Remand extension — Procedural safeguards — Accused’s presence mandatory — Article 21 violation — Remand order set aside — Bail granted with conditions Where the Trial Court extended judicial remand without producing the accused physically or virtually or informing him of the extension request, such failure constituted gross illegality violating Article 21 as per Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 SC 973). The High Court held that extension orders cannot be passed mechanically and must ensure accused participation. Consequently, the impugned order extending remand was set aside, and the accused was enlarged on bail with conditions. (Kadimi Rakesh v. State of A.P., CRLRC No.1386 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

Criminal Revision — Remand extension — Procedural safeguards — Accused’s presence mandatory — Article 21 violation — Remand order set aside — Bail granted with conditions

Where the Trial Court extended judicial remand without producing the accused physically or virtually or informing him of the extension request, such failure constituted gross illegality violating Article 21 as per Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 SC 973).
The High Court held that extension orders cannot be passed mechanically and must ensure accused participation. Consequently, the impugned order extending remand was set aside, and the accused was enlarged on bail with conditions.

(Kadimi Rakesh v. State of A.P., CRLRC No.1386 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Background

The revision challenged the order dated 29.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.1224/2025 in Crime No.44/2025, wherein the Special Judge for NDPS offences extended remand up to 250 days from first remand date of Accused No.4.

The revision Court undertook evaluation of:

• legality of remand extension, and

• procedural irregularities affecting Article 21 protections.

2. Core Factual Issue

On the 165th day of judicial custody, a remand extension application was moved.
The impugned order did not disclose:

• Production of the petitioner either physically or virtually, and

• Communication of extension request to the accused.

3. Governing Legal Principle

The Court invoked the binding principle from:

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022 Supreme (SC) 973)

— namely, failure to produce the accused or notify him of extension consideration is:

• not a mere irregularity,

• but a gross illegality, and

• constitutes violation of Article 21 because extension deprives the accused of default bail entitlement, which is intrinsically tied to personal liberty.

Thus, procedural safeguards are mandatory before depriving liberty.

4. Application to Present Case

The Court found:

• Trial Court neither secured petitioner’s presence nor notified him of remand consideration.

• Mandatory safeguard under Article 21 was breached.

• Remand extension was passed mechanically, unacceptable under due process principles.

Thus, the order could not stand.

5. Resulting Determination

The revision carried merit as:

• violation struck at fundamental rights,

• remand order was vitiated, and

• relief was warranted.

The Court therefore:

• Set aside the remand extension order, and

• Granted bail to petitioner subject to stringent conditions:

  • Bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties

  • Weekly police reporting

  • Territorial restriction (State limit)

  • No offence commission

  • Cooperation with investigation

  • Non-tampering restriction

  • Passport surrender / affidavit requirement

III. CONCLUSION

• The Criminal Revision Case was allowed.

• The impugned remand extension order was set aside as being violative of Article 21 safeguards under Jigar’s ratio.

• The petitioner was enlarged on bail with specified compliance conditions.

• Pending interlocutory applications were closed without separate orders on costs