Telangana High Court
Adigarla Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL REVIONS CASE No.108 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 and 432
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023')
challenging the remand order dated 24.11.2024 in Crime No.438 of
2024 on the file of the V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, FAC IV
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner-
accused No.2.
[
2. Heard Mr.Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.11.2024 at about
10.00 am., on credible information the police apprehended seven
persons including the petitioner at Parcel Office, Kachiguda Railway
Station, who were in possession of gunny bags and back bags (four
bags in all) and the search revealed that they were in possession of 57
ganja packets wrapped in brown packing tape totally weighing up to
119.6 Kgs. Accordingly, they were arrested and produced them before
the Magistrate.
NTR,J
4. The solitary ground raised by the petitioner-accused No.2 is that
after apprehension, the petitioner was not produced before the
concerned Magistrate within 24 hours as contemplated under Sections
57 and 167 (1) of Cr.P.C as such the remand order stands vitiated and
such action has effected his fundamental rights. Therefore, as per the
settled position he entitled to be released by quashing the remand
order. In this regard, the petitioner pointed out the Column No.8 of the
FIR, wherein the time of taking into custody is recorded as 10.58 hours
on 23.11.2024 and in the remand order passed by the V Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, it has been mentioned that the
petitioner-accused No.2 was produced before the Court at 01.00 pm
on 24.11.2024. Thus, the prosecution record is clinching the fact that
the remand was beyond 24 hours. In support the petitioner cited the
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.12912 of 2024, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1
and D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal 2 and prayed for quashment
of the remand order.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
accused who were apprehended on suspicion at 10.58 hours on
23.11.2024, however arrested on 16.10 hours on 23.11.2024 and they
were produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. He further
2024 INSC 414
(2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 744
NTR,J
pleads that the accused were apprehended with contraband for the
offences under NDPS Act and they belong to other State, as such,
their arrest was effected after requisite information to the relatives of
the accused persons. Thus, prayed for considering the circumstances.
6. I have perused the materials on record.
7. Section 57 and 167(1) of Cr.P.C in clear terms contemplate that
the persons arrested cannot be detained more than 24 hours by the
police and specifies procedure when an investigation cannot be
completed within the initial 24 hours of arrest. Admittedly, there is no
other proceeding put-forth by the prosecution that any remedial
measures were taken under law for extension of time to produce the
accused before the Magistrate after 24 hours. That apart, detaining
any person in custody beyond 24 hours without lawful authority would
stand in contravention of fundamental rights under Article 22 (2) of the
Constitution of India.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha (cited supra)
and this Court in W.P.No.21912 of 2024 has clearly held that the 24
hours contemplated under Section 57 of Cr.P.C would come into effect
from the time of apprehension. Considering this position the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12912 of 2024 in Para Nos.12
and 25 held as follows:
NTR,J
:...12. Accordingly this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the
conclusion that question No.1 as regards the commencement of the
period of apprehension is concerned, it is held that the period of
apprehension is also to be taken into consideration for the purpose
of calculating the period of 24 hours as is envisaged under Section
57 of Cr.P.C. In other words, 24 hours is not to be calculated from
the time of the official arrest being shown by the police personnel in
the arrest memo, but from the time he was initially apprehended or
taken into custody. In view of the same, accused Nos.3 and 4 have
been produced before the Judicial Magistrate only after completion
of 24 hours from the time they were apprehended. Accused Nos.1,
2 and 6 were produced before the Judicial Magistrate before
completion of 24 hours. Therefore, there is clear violation of the
statutory requirement under Section 57 of Cr.P.C so far as accused
No.3 and 4 are concerned, and they are accordingly liable to be
given the benefit for the illegal act which the respondent authorities
have committed.
25. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents and upon
reading of the two provisions of law, we have no hesitation in
reaching to the conclusion that TSPDEF Act has not in any manner
ousted the applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C, so far as the
mandatory requirement which includes the fundamental right of any
person who stands apprehended or arrested to be produced before
the nearest Judicial Magistrate. If the said interpretation is not
accepted or followed; the very purpose, object and intention of the
law makers at the first instance so far as the fundamental right
guaranteed and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and
secondly under the statute i.e., Section 167 (1) and (2) of Cr.P.C.
would render the two provisions redundant, which in the opinion of
this Court would give rise to far more complications and
repercussions and which perhaps is also not the intension of the law
makers in the course of enacting the TSPDFE Act".
9. In the instant case as it is clear by the record that the
apprehension is at 10.58 am on 23.11.2024 and remand hour is at
NTR,J
1.00 pm on 24.11.2024, it has to be held that the petitioner was
produced before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours. By the settled law it
has to be held that the remand order is against contemplations of the
law. In effect, the impugned remand order against the petitioner
stands vitiated and consequent remand of the petitioner. Accordingly,
the remand order dated 24.11.2024 in respect of the petitioner-
accused No.2 is set aside and the respondents are directed to set free
the petitioner from the custody, however on furnishing bail and bonds
as prescribed by the Court below, to its satisfaction.
10. In the above terms, this criminal petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
Date: 09.04.2025
pld
