Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15523
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Bokka Muralidhar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11921 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Veera Babu Gandu
For the Respondents: Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla
The necessity of judicial scrutiny of police remand orders under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was upheld, affirming procedural compliance without quashing proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 35 - Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings for non-compliance with Section 35(3) regarding arrest procedures. - The court affirms the necessity of judicial scrutiny by magistrates over police remand orders to ensure compliance. (Para 10).
(B) Procedural Irregularities - The court highlights that procedural irregularities do not automatically constitute an abuse of process of law. The investigation is ongoing, and such irregularities did not warrant quashing the proceedings. (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the validity of remand orders under BNS, citing procedural failures. The petition contended that the Magistrate passed the remand order mechanically, without following necessary protocol.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasizes the importance of police duties in documenting reasons for arrest and the duty of courts to examine these reasons.
Issues: The main issues pertain to the proper adherence to remand procedures under Section 35(3) of BNS and the implications of procedural compliance on ongoing investigations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that remand orders lacking sufficient justification do not constitute an abuse of legal process and the petition was dismissed based on ongoing investigations.
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1247 of 2025 on the file of P.S Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda District registered for the offences under Sections 352, 353(3) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNS , 2023”) and Section, 66-F ITA -2000-
2008.
2. Heard the submissions of Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.
3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the Police have remanded the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS even though the offences are all punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. Since, they failed to follow the procedure, the counsel has prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. He further relied upon Poduri Ranjith Vs. State of Telangana , [CrlP.No.608 of 2025] decided on 18.04.2022.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Police custody has also been granted and interrogation is completed.
5. Perused the record.
6. The Magistrate has passed a Remand Order on 08.09.2025, even though the offences are punishable less than seven years. The Magistrate failed to observe as to whether the Police have issued notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, without examining the record, the remand order is passed mechanically. Thus, non compliance of Section 35 (3) of the BNSS has to be given a serious thought by the Magistrate, while passing the orders.
7. The petitioner counsel has relied upon Ranjith’s case (supra), wherein it was held that, if the remands are made solely basing on the reasons stated by the Police, then the duty of the Judge is a mere ritual. The learned Judge is supposed to make a judicial scrutiny whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest, such reasons are relevant and the Police Officer has reached at a reasonable conclusion that the stated reasons are attracted.
8. Thus, the petitioner counsel contends that since the Magistrate has not assigned any reasons, the proceedings got vitiated and thus have to be quashed against the petitioner. It is a procedural irregularity committed by the Officer and cannot be held to be an abuse of process of law.
9. Since the petition is filed for non-compliance of Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, it is pertinent to refer Section 35 . The same are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:-
Section 35 in Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023:- When police may arrest without warrant:- (1)Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person-
(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence; or (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:-
(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;
(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary- (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured,and the police officer shall record while making such arrest
