TELANGANA HIGH COURT
P. Sam Koshy and N.Tukaramji, JJ.
T. Ramadevi – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.21912 of 2024
Decided on 26.9.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 57 and 167(1) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 58 and 187(1)] – Constitution of India – Article 22(2) – Habeas Corpus Petition – Production of detenu – Detenus are said to be accused and arrested for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 – Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest and detention with exceptions carved out, those which are not applicable in present case – Same is the provision that is reflected in Section 167 of Cr.P.C. as well – TSPDFE Act has not in any manner ousted applicability of provisions of Cr.P.C. so far as mandatory requirement which includes fundamental right of any person who stands apprehended or arrested to be produced before nearest Judicial Magistrate – Authorities seem to have clearly violated provisions of Article 22(2) of Constitution at first instance and also there is clear violation of Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. – Habeas Corpus Petition allowed. (Paras 22, 25, 27 and 28)
Result: Habeas Corpus Petition allowed.
ORDER
P. Sam Koshy, J.—Heard Mr. Yemmiganur Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General, for the respondents.
2. The present is a second writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the same petitioner, and by way of the present writ petition the petitioner herein seeks for production of the four detenus viz., Thallapally Srinivas Goud,Thallapally Sai Sharath, Thallapally Sai Rohith and Palavalasa Siva Saran. This writ petition has been filed substantially on two questions of law, which are:-
a) Whether the period of apprehension by the police authorities before the official arrest being shown is also to be considered for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of producing the so-called apprehended person before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours?
b) Whether an accused under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (for short ‘TSPDFE Act’) can be produced for the first remand before the nearest Judicial Magistrate or he needs to be presented only before the concerned notified Special Court?
3. The aforesaid four detenus are said to be accused and arrested for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act. The petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed another writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus i.e. Writ Petition No.21034 of 2024. When the said writ petition was filed, the grounds raised in the present writ petition were not available and it was filed at the stage of their apprehension itself and subsequently when the matter came up for hearing, the said writ petition was disposed of in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel as regards the official arrest of the four detenus being made and they being sent on judicial remand vide order dated 02.08.2024. The said writ petition was rejected on the very same day i.e. on 02.08.2024 itself. That subsequently after obtaining necessary documents and records, the present writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed raising two substantial questions of law which have been framed in the beginning of this order.
4. As regards the first question is concerned, the undisputed fact which is revealed from the order of first remand itself is that the accused Nos.3 and 4 were apprehended at 10:00 A.M. on 31.07.2024. From the Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and which is not in dispute is that after having apprehended accused Nos.3 and 4 at around 10:00 A.M. on 31.07.2024, the police team proceeded to Beeramguda in search of the other accused. On 01.08.2024 at around 00:30 hours, accused No.1 Thallapally Sai Rohith, accused No.2 ThallaMamatha and accused No.6 Palavalasa Siva Saran were found at their residence at Beeramguda and the police apprehended them for questioning and at around 01:30 hours on 01.08.2024 they were brought to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, and took them into custody and the arrest was shown on 01.08.2024 at 15:40 hours. That after completing all the formalities, all the alleged detenues were produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate at his residence at Hasthinapuram on 02.08.2024 at 12:30 A.M. Thus, from the finding of facts as per the Counter affidavit itself, the accused persons were officially apprehended and subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate as indicated in the table below:
| Accused No. | Name | Time and Date of Apprehension | Time of Date of Arrest shown | Time of producing before the Judicial Magistrate | Number of hours spent in police detention |
| 1 | Thallapally Sai Rohith | Time: 00:30 A.M. Date: 01.08.2024 | Time: 15:40 hours Date: 01.08.2024 | Time: 00:30 A.M. Date: 02.08.2024 | 24 hours |
| 2 | Thalla Mamatha | Time: 00:30 A.M. Date: 01.08.2024 | Time: 15:40 h | ||
Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs. The Dist. General of Police, Rajasthan State, Jaipur
Habeas Corpus Petition – Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest and detention with exceptions carved ....
The period of apprehension must be included in the 24-hour limit for producing an arrested person before a magistrate, ensuring compliance with constitutional rights.
The Enforcement Directorate officers are not Police officers under CrPC, thus they cannot seek custody beyond the initial 24 hours of arrest unless substantively justified; however, compliance with P....
Judicial custody requires extension by the Magistrate, without which detention is not automatically illegal; compliance with statutory provisions is necessary for lawful detention.
Detention is unlawful if not presented before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, but subsequent valid remands under different provisions can negate initial illegalities.
Failure to produce arrested individuals before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention, impacting subsequent remand validity.
Arrest must be recognized from when an individual's liberty is restrained, and failure to produce before a magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention under constitutional provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.