Kasimayan Kumar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — CRLRC/601/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438&442. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED NO COSTS on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010306832026

e-Filing Number

18-06-2026

Filing Number

CRLRC/6064/2026

Filing Date

18-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRLRC/601/2026

Registration Date

18-Jun-2026

Judge

Y. Lakshmana Rao

Coram

Y. Lakshmana Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRLRC ( 42 )

Sub-Category

Other offences not covered above ( 141 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL Section

Decision Date

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED NO COSTS

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438&442

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kasimayan Kumar

    Adv. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

    Case Summary: CRLRC /601/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the trial court's order extending remand beyond 180 days in an NDPS case, holding that the Public Prosecutor failed to independently apply his mind or file a proper report as required by Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The court granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, emphasizing that extension orders require substantive public prosecutor scrutiny, not mere forwarding of police requests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Y. Lakshmana Rao

  4. 18-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLRC/601/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRLRC /601/2026 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the trial court's order extending remand beyond 180 days in an NDPS case, holding that the Public Prosecutor failed to independently apply his mind or file a proper report as required by Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The court granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, emphasizing that extension orders require substantive public prosecutor scrutiny, not mere forwarding of police requests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case