Extension of investigation — Validity of Public Prosecutor’s report — Independent application of mind absent (Paras 5–6) Issue: Whether extension of remand up to 300 days is valid without proper report of Public Prosecutor. Facts: The prosecution sought extension of time; however, the Public Prosecutor did not file any independent report showing application of mind, nor disclosed progress of investigation or justification for continued detention; the Trial Court granted extension mechanically. Held: Such extension is illegal as the statutory requirement of an independent report by the Public Prosecutor is mandatory. (Paras 5–6)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

NDPS Act — Section 36-A(4) — Extension of investigation — Validity of Public Prosecutor’s report — Independent application of mind absent (Paras 5–6)

Issue: Whether extension of remand up to 300 days is valid without proper report of Public Prosecutor.
Facts: The prosecution sought extension of time; however, the Public Prosecutor did not file any independent report showing application of mind, nor disclosed progress of investigation or justification for continued detention; the Trial Court granted extension mechanically.
Held: Such extension is illegal as the statutory requirement of an independent report by the Public Prosecutor is mandatory. (Paras 5–6)

---

Default bail — Invalid extension of time — Right of accused — Accrual (Paras 5–6, 8)

Issue: Whether accused is entitled to default bail when extension of time is invalid.
Facts: Extension of remand was granted without compliance of statutory requirements and without assigning specific reasons for detention.
Held: The order extending remand is liable to be set aside, and the accused becomes entitled to bail, as the statutory right arising from default of prosecution cannot be defeated. (Paras 5–6, 8)

---

Bail — Parity — Co-accused granted bail — Applicability (Para 7)

Issue: Whether petitioner is entitled to bail on parity with co-accused.
Facts: Co-accused (A2 and A7) were already granted bail in a similar petition, and the petitioner/A.3 stood on the same footing.
Held: On the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to conditions. (Para 7)