The court ruled that remand orders must adhere to constitutional protections, requiring reasonable grounds and cannot be mechanically issued, emphasizing personal liberty.

ORDER :

E.V. Venugopal, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the remand docket order, dated 30.10.2024 in Cr.No.11/RCT-CIU-ACB/2024 against the petitioner, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Bureau, Telangana State. Perused the record.

3. This is a case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- by the accused officer Sri P.Venkoba, AEE/NMR, Office of Executive Engineer, Circle XIV, Goshamahal Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad from the complainant Sri Jaffar Hussain, Class V (Civil) Contractor, R/o.Dabeerpura, Hyderabad on 29.10.2024 at about 1600 hours in McDonald’s Restaurant, situated in the MPM Mall, Abids, Hyderabad to perform an official duty. A case is registered against the accused officer for the offence u/s.7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and he was produced before the Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad on 30.10.2024 at 5:00 p.m and the accused officer is restricted/ restrained in the custody of the investigating officer for more than 24 hours and he was remanded to judicial custody till 13.11.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the remand docket order, dated 30.10.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Investigating Officer has not obtained mandatory sanction under Section 17A for conducting an inquiry or investigation. He further contended that 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 concerned Court within 24 hours. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the order dated 26.09.2024 in T. Ramadevi vs The State of Telangana, W.P.No.21912 of 2024 (DB) HC TS  passed by the Division Bench of this Court and contended that the personal liberty of the accused was restricted or restrained and the learned trial Court without taking into consideration of the same, mechanically accepted the version of the police that they were struck in traffic and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody till 13.11.2024 . Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned docket order.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB would submit that as per the remand report, though the trap was laid at 4:00 p.m. on 29.10.2024 at McDonald’s restaurant, the petitioner was taken to GHMC office where the ACB officials questioned him, further the witness employees working in GHMC were also enquired by the ACB officials then proceedings were drafted. But as per the remand report, the petitioner was arrested at 22:30 hours on 29.10.2024 and was produced before the Court at 5:00 p.m. on 30.10.2024, as such it cannot be said that the personal liberty of the accused was restricted or restrained beyond 24 hours. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse and unconstitutional and without application of mind. Further, the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 26.09.2024 in T. Ramadevi vs The State of Telangana passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21912 of 2024 (DB) .

7. This Court in Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2024 categorically held as follows:

“Personal liberty is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof, as sti