Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, K.MANMADHA RAO
Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY
For the Respondent:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Judgement Key Points

The argument of the defence, as presented in the document, was that the detention was lawful because the detainee was produced before the magistrate within the prescribed time frame, and the remand report was properly submitted and re-submitted in accordance with legal requirements (!) (!) . The defence contended that the arrest and detention complied with the statutory procedures, including the communication of the grounds of arrest, and that the detention was valid under the law (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the defence argued that the notice under Section 47 of the relevant law was properly given, even if through informal means such as WhatsApp messages to relatives, and that the detention was therefore not illegal (!) (!) . They also maintained that the magistrate's role in the remand process was appropriate and that the magistrate had correctly considered the remand report, which justified the detention (!) (!) .

In essence, the defence's position was that the arrest and subsequent detention were carried out in accordance with legal procedures, and there was no violation of the statutory or constitutional requirements, particularly regarding the communication of grounds for arrest (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

R Raghunandan Rao, J.

The 4^th respondent, who is also the 5^th respondent, arrested the detenue on 24.02.2025 at 9.00 P.M. and produced the detenue before the Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class FAC, Vijayawada, at 5.45 P.M. on 25.02.2025. The Magistrate, after going through the remand report, returned the remand report with the endorsement that the intimation of arrest was not given to the accused and that the remand report did not contain all the Sections which are added to the alteration memo.

2. The subsequent remand order of the Magistrate shows that the remand application was returned for compliance and that the Police had re-submitted the record at 11.10 P.M. The Police Authority is said to have given another notice under Section 47 (1) of BNSS to the detenue, who refused to receive the same. The Magistrate recorded that, the case record shows that the accused was informed of the reasons for arrest but refused to receive the arrest intimation. On enquiry by this Court, he has stated that he refused to receive the notice. The Magistrate further recorded that the arrest intimation, filed under Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023