Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17930

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. Raghunandan Rao, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ
Pappula Chalama Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P.No.26769 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri S. Sriram, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy
For the Respondents:Learned Advocate General

Furnishing written grounds of arrest is mandatory; failure to comply renders the arrest illegal and affects the validity of the remand order.

Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 - BNS - Sections 61(2), 196, 352, 353(2), 308(5), 111, 336(4), 340(2) - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Challenge against the legality of a remand order and the arrest of the petitioner’s son - The Court examined whether the grounds for arrest were furnished in compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements, particularly Article 22(1). The Court ruled that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest rendered the remand order illegal. (Paras 1, 56-62)

(B) Writ of Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - While a writ petition is generally not maintainable after invoking alternative remedies such as bail, jurisdiction is retained where a remand order is passed mechanically or with lack of application of mind. (Paras 24-28, 56-62)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release his son, detained under multiple sections of the BNS and IT Act for allegedly posting abusive content on social media against government officials. The petitioner challenged the legality of the arrest and remand alleging lack of compliance with statutory provisions regarding the grounds of arrest.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the arrest and remand were conducted without properly serving the grounds for arrest as required, thus ruling the remand order illegal.

Issues: Whether the writ is maintainable despite alternative remedies being pursued and whether the provisions regarding grounds of arrest were duly complied with.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that due process requires that an arrested individual must be informed of the detailed grounds for their arrest in writing to allow them to effectively prepare their defense. The failure to provide such information invalidates the remand.

Result: Writ petition allowed; remand order set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court discusses maintainability of habeas corpus despite bail applications and alternative remedies. (!) (!) (!) - It emphasizes that grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person in writing under Article 22(1) and that mere reasons for arrest are not sufficient; writing of grounds is mandatory. (!) (!) (!) - It holds that remand must be decided with application of mind and not mechanically; mechanical remand can render habeas corpus relief available. (!) (!) (!)

How to determine maintainability of a writ of habeas corpus when an alternative bail remedy has been pursued?

What is required to satisfy Article 22(1) in terms of grounds of arrest being communicated to the arrested person?

What are the consequences if grounds of arrest are not provided in writing or if remand is passed mechanically without application of mind?

Table of Content
1. facts of the case regarding habeas corpus. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding legality of arrest and remand. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis on maintainability and legality of remand. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. judgment on grounds of arrest and applicability of article 22. (Para 24 , 30 , 33 , 62)
5. final conclusion of the court's judgment. (Para 72)

The Court made the following Order:

(Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard, Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.

Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, for setting the detenue, who is his son, free by setting aside the order of remand, dated 08.11.2024, passed by the Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda, remanding the detenue to judicial custody, in Crime No.104 of 2024, registered in Inavolu Police Station, Palnadu District.

3. The petitioner states that his son (hereinafter referred to as „the detenue‟) was arrested by the 4^th respondent and produced before the territorial jurisdictional Magistrate, on 08.11.2024, who remanded the detenue to judicial custody. The petitioner disputes the record of arrest, showing arrest of the detenue at 11 am., on 08.11.2024. Nothing further turns on this issue, as the challenge to the arrest and remand is not on this ground.

4. The petitioner states that the 5^threspondent had lodged a report before the 4^th respondent, stating that the detenue had posted abusive material, on Face book, in relation to the Hon‟ble Chief Minister and also some morphed photographs showing the Hon‟ble Deputy Chief Minister in a bad light, apart from posting an abusive message along with the morphed photographs. On the basis of this complaint, the 4^th respondent is said to have registered Crime No.104/2024, against the detenue, under the provisions of Sections 61(2), 196, 352, 353(2) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short „the IT Act‟). Thereafter, the 4^th respondent, by way of Memos, had added Sections 111 , 226(4), 308 (5) and 340(2) of BNS .

5. The petitioner further contends that all the aforesaid provisions of law, except Sections 308(5) and 111 of BNS , attract punishment of imprisonment below 7 years. The petitioner further contends that Sections 308(5) and 111 of BNS are not attracted in the present case and consequently the arrest and subsequent remand of the detenue are illegal.

6. Apart from this, the petitioner would also contend that the investigating officer, instead of issuing a notice under Section 35(2) of BNS S (equivalent to Section 41 Cr.P.C.,), as required by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar , [1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 ], had deliberately included the provisions of Sections 308(5) and Section 111 of BNS , only for the purpose of arresting and detaining the detenue.

7. The petitioner, apart from these grounds, would also contend that the arrest and subsequent remand by the Magistrate, is in violation of the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), [2 (2024) INSC 414 ]. The said judgment requires the officer, who arrests a person, to furnish grounds of arrest, and mere furnishing of reasons of arrest would not be sufficient. As the said grounds of arrest have not been served on the detenue, there is a violation of this judgment and consequently both the arrest and subsequent remand order would have to be set aside as being violative of the aforesaid directions and the detenue would have to be set free.

8. The petitioner would also contend that the learned Magistrate, without considering the applicability of Section 111 of BNS , had mechanically remanded the detenue to judicial custody. Apart from this, the learned Magistrate, by recording that the grounds of arrest had been s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document