THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 515 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), challenging the remand order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No. 252 of 2025 registered at Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Mr.Mohd. Azhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused No.8 for the offences under Sections 318(4), 204 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS, 2023).

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested by the concerned police and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Pursuant to such production, and by virtue of the impugned remand order, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned remand order is vitiated in law on the ground that the petitioner/Accused No. 8 was produced before the learned Magistrate beyond the mandatory period of 24 hours from the time of detention. It was contended that the Magistrate, without duly considering this crucial procedural lapse, erroneously remanded the petitioner to judicial custody.

To substantiate the contention of delayed production, learned counsel drew attention to the remand case diary dated 08.07.2025, wherein it is specifically recorded that the petitioner was apprehended from his residence on 07.07.2025 at approximately 10:15 P.M. and in the remand order itself, the learned Magistrate noted that the petitioner was produced before the Court only at about 11:35 P.M. on 08.07.2025. This reflects a delay of approximately one hour and twenty minutes beyond the prescribed 24-hour period under Section 167 of the CrPC, thereby rendering the remand illegal.

It was further argued that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years. Accordingly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and in light of Section 41A of the CrPC/35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner ought to have been served with a notice for appearance rather than being subjected to arrest. The investigating officer, in blatant disregard of this well-settled legal position, proceeded to effect the petitioner’s arrest without justification.

It was also urged that the record discloses no specific or substantive allegations against the petitioner that would satisfy the essential ingredients of offences such as cheating or impersonation. Consequently, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Despite the absence of material particulars and procedural compliance, the learned Magistrate mechanically passed the order of remand.

Learned counsel finally asserted that the time from the apprehension of the petitioner to his production before the Magistrate must be strictly accounted for under Section 167 of the CrPC, and any violation thereof renders the remand order void. In view of the above submissions, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and that the petitioner be set at liberty.

6. In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police report and accompanying material prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner (Accused No. 8)

in the alleged offences. He contended that the learned Magistrate had passed the remand order after due consideration of the material placed before him. However, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the record indicates the petitioner was indeed produced beyond 24 hours from the time of arrest. Accordingly, he submitted that appropriate orders may be passed as deemed fit in