IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Patnam Narender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 13953 of 2024
Decided On : 04-12-2024
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (for short, ‘BNSS’), to quash the docket order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodangal, Vikarabad (for short, ‘the Magistrate’) in Cr.No.153 of 2024 of Bomraspet Police Station.
3. The petitioner is an Ex-MLA. He is an accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 61 (2), 49, 191(2), 191(3), 132, 109, 121(1), 126(2), 336(4), 324(4) read with 49 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, ‘PDPPA’) and Section 128 of BNSS.
4. On the complaint lodged by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad Sib-division (respondent No.2), the Police Bomraspet Police Station registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner on 13.11.2024 and produced before the Magistrate on 13.11.2024 at 4.10 P.M. Vide docket order dated 13.11.2024, the Magistrate remanded the petitioner/A.1 and other accused to judicial custody till 27.11.2024. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/A.1 filed the present petition to quash the same.
5. The allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint dated 11.11.2024 are as follows:-
On 11.11.2024, the District Collector, Special Officer, Kodangal Urban Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as ‘KADA’ and other officials went to the outskirts of Lagcherla Village for the purpose of conducting public hearing with regard to establishment of Pharma Company.
Villagers and other stakeholders were not found there to participate in the public hearing. A.2 informed the District Collector and other officials stating that nobody will come to the said place of meeting and they have to conduct public hearing at Lagcherla village. They can hold gramsabha in the village. Thereafter, the District Collector and other officials believed his version bonafidely and went to Lagcherla village in his car bearing No.TS 07 EV 2929. Other officials including defacto-complainant followed them to the village.
6. It is further alleged that in Lagcherla village, the people of Lagchrela, Rotibanda Thanda, Pulicherlakunta Thanda formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with stones, sticks and Chilli powder. At about 12.20 hours, when all the officials including the Collector reached Lagcherla village, accused and others raised slogans against the District Collector saying that ‘go back Pharma’. They have also obstructed the Collector’s vehicle and also Special Officer, KADA. They have attacked the Collector. They have also attacked the defacto-complainant with stones, sticks and chilli powder. They have also damaged Collector’s vehicle. When Special Officer, KADA tried to convince the accused and other people, they have attacked him. In the said attack, he received injuries on the left hand, back side of his neck and right leg etc. He has saved himself, otherwise they would have killed him. Thus, all the accused formed into unlawful assembly, tried to kill the Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials for conducting public hearing.
7. It is relevant to note that the name of the petitioner is not there in the said complaint. During the course of investigation, his name was shown as A.1 and he was arrested on 13.11.2024, remanded to judicial custody till 27.11.2024 vide impugned docket order dated 13.11.2024.
8. The allegation leveled against the petitioner herein is that he is the prime conspirator who played vital role in preparation and provocating the farmers of Hakimpet, Polepally, Rotibanda Thanda, Pulicherlakunta and Lagcherla of Dudyal Mandal, by
The court upheld the legality of the arrest and remand of the petitioner, affirming compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
The court reaffirmed that informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional requirement, and non-compliance invalidates the arrest and remand.
Arrest may be authorised only if concerned officer has ‘reason to believe’ and there is `satisfaction qua an arrest’ that person has committed an offence – There must be a direct nexus or live link b....
The arrest of an individual must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing specific grounds for arrest, which must be communicated in writing to ensure the accused's ....
Compliance with Article 22(1) requires written grounds of arrest conveyed effectively to the arrested individual.
Cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy by public servant – Short delay in informing the person of reason for arrest is permissible.
The judgment establishes that police must justify arrests and follow legal procedures, particularly in non-bailable offenses, to protect individual liberties.
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.