Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.5444 of 2025
Decided on : 11-03-2025
For the Petitioner: PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY
For the Respondent:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Failure to inform a detenue of the grounds for arrest as mandated by law results in illegal detention.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 47(1) - Writ Petition for illegal detention - Detenue not informed of grounds of arrest as required by law, rendering detention illegal - Court emphasizes the necessity of immediate communication of arrest particulars. (Paras 7, 10, 13)
(B) Judicial oversight - Magistrate failed to apply mind in returning remand report after acknowledging non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 11, 12)
(C) Writ of Habeas Corpus - Maintainability discussed in context of previous remand orders. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
The wife of the detenue challenged the legality of the remand order, asserting that the arrest intimation required under Section 47(1) of BNSS was not properly communicated.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the failure to inform the detenue of the reasons for arrest rendered the detention illegal, and thus set aside the remand order.
Issues: The main issues included whether the arrest intimation was properly communicated, and the legality of the subsequent detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the failure to provide grounds for arrest violates statutory and constitutional mandates, rendering detention illegal.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; detenue to be set at liberty.
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 4th respondent, who is also the 5th 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 (here-in-after referred to as “ BNSS ”), and oral enquiry of this Court the accused refused to receive arrest intimation as such, the detenue is said to have received the notice.
3. The remand order also recorded the statement of the counsel, appearing for the detenue, that arrest intimation of the detenue was given to his relatives through whatsapp, which is not proper intimation. The further statement, recorded in the remand order, was that the detenue was produced at 5.45 P.M. and arrest intimation was received by the cousin of the accused. Thereafter, a second whatsapp message was sent to the cousin of the detenue.
4. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue, moved this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, contending that the remand of the detenue by the Magistrate is in clear violation of Section 47 (1) of BNSS .
5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State contends that the notice under Section 47 (1) of BNSS was sought to be served on the detenue at the time of his arrest and he had refused to receive the same. Due to this fact, notice of intimation of arrest, required under Section 47 (1) of BNSS, could not be placed before the Magistrate. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the detenue remained in the Court of the Magistrate till the remand report got resubmitted along with the statement that notice could not be served on the detenue on account of his refusal to receive the intimation of arrest.
6. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the detenue was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and that the return of the remand report and resubmission of the remand report is in accordance with law and that there is no violation of Section 47 (1) of BNSS .
7. Section 47 (1) of BNSS reads as follows:
“47. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”
The plain language, of Section 47 (1) of BNSS, is that any person, who is arrested, has to be “forthwith” communicated with all the particulars for which he is being arrested or any other ground for such arrest.
8. The detenue was produced before the Magistrate along with the remand report. The remand report only stated that the detenue was arrested at Kaza Toll Plaza at 9.00 P.M. on 24.02.2025 and that the detenue was informed about the offence. There is no statement in the remand report that the detenue had refused to receive the intimation under Section 47 (1).
9. In the circumstances, keeping in view the endorsement of the Magistrate on the remand report that intimation under Section 47 (1) of BNSS has not been s
