Telangana High Court
Md. Samad, vs The State Of Telangana, on 27 November, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.875 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and
432 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS") by the
petitioner/accused, assailing the remand order dated 19.11.2025
passed in Crime No. 24 of 2025 on the file of the XVII Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri Pujari Mani Sahith, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner stands accused of offences punishable under
Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(f)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and Section 5(1)(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act").
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the mother of
the victim lodged a complaint on 07.02.2025 at 4:00 PM, reporting
that her minor daughter had been missing since 03.02.2025.
During investigation, on 07.11.2025, the complainant appeared at
the police station along with her daughter, who had returned
home at about 8:00 PM. Upon recording the victim's statement, the
investigating officer discovered the alleged involvement of the
petitioner, who was then arrested and produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, resulting in the impugned remand order.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the remand
order was passed mechanically and without due appreciation of
material evidence placed before the Magistrate. He specifically
argues that the remand was effected beyond the statutory 24-hour
period prescribed under Section 59(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
5.2. He point outs that, the Remand Case Diary reflects that the
petitioner was apprehended at 4:00 PM on 18.11.2025, while the
remand order records his production before the Magistrate at 5:00
PM on 19.11.2025 clearly beyond 24 hours. Reliance is placed on
the judgments of this Court in Syed Dastagir v. State of Telangana,
2025 SCC OnLine TS 606, and T. Ramadevi v. State of Telangana,
2024 SCC OnLine TS 4288, where it was held that production of an
accused before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours from apprehension
renders such detention illegal, entitling the accused to bail.
5.3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a minor, aged
17 years, as evidenced by his Aadhaar Card showing his date of
birth as 01.01.2008. Despite this, the learned Magistrate
erroneously treated him as a major based on the remand case
diary, which reflected his age as "19/20". It is argued that the
Magistrate failed to appreciate that, as a juvenile in conflict with
law, the petitioner ought to have been produced before the
Juvenile Justice Board in compliance with the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act"), rather than
being remanded to regular judicial custody. On these grounds, he
prays that the impugned remand order be set aside and the
petitioner be released on bail.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that the petitioner is involved in serious offences under
the POCSO Act, as the victim's statement reveals sexual
exploitation by the petitioner, which prompted her to leave her
home. While conceding that the record indicates a delay beyond
24 hours between apprehension and remand, he contends that
such delay may not vitiate the proceedings given the gravity of the
allegations. He also submits that the petitioner's age was recorded
as 19 years in the Remand Case Diary, and therefore, his plea of
minority requires verification by the competent authority.
7. Upon consideration of the submissions and perusal of the
record, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's contention.
8. The record clearly establishes that the petitioner was
apprehended on 18.11.2025 at 4:00 PM, but was produced before
the Magistrate only on 19.11.2025 at 5:00 PM, thereby exceeding
the mandatory 24-hour limit. The settled legal position, as
reaffirmed in Syed Dastagir (supra) and T. Ramadevi (supra), is that
the period of detention must be calculated from the time of actual
apprehension, not from the time of formal arrest or registration of
remand request. Any detention beyond 24 hours without judicial
sanction constitutes illegal custody, infringing upon the
fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
9. The learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order,
failed to address this vital aspect, thereby vitiating the order of
remand. The omission to examine the legality of custody before
authorizing remand is a serious procedural irregularity affecting
the validity of the order. Consequently, the remand order dated
19.11.2025 is set aside.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail, upon
executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the
XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. Further,
the petitioner shall not interfere with the ongoing investigation,
shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer, and shall make
himself available for further inquiry as required.
11. As regards the plea of minority, the learned Magistrate is
directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 94 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, giving both the
petitioner and the prosecution an opportunity to produce
documentary and oral evidence. Upon such determination, further
proceedings shall continue either before the Juvenile Justice Board
(if the petitioner is found to be a juvenile) or before the regular
court. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably
within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed, and the
impugned order dated 19.11.2025 stands set aside. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 27.11.2025
mmr
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.875 OF 2025
27.11.2025
mmr
