Telangana High Court Dismisses Ex-MLA Patnam Narender Reddy's Plea Against Remand In Lagerchala Collector "Attack" Case
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a plea by former MLA of BRS party Patnam Narender Reddy for quashing an order remanding him to judicial custody in connection with the alleged attack on the District Collector, Kodangal Urban Development Authority (KADA) by the residents of the Lagcherla village last month. The court found that the Magistrate court in the present case had directed...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a plea by former MLA of BRS party Patnam Narender Reddy for quashing an order remanding him to judicial custody in connection with the alleged attack on the District Collector, Kodangal Urban Development Authority (KADA) by the residents of the Lagcherla village last month.
The court found that the Magistrate court in the present case had directed the Superintendent of Cherlapally Central Jail, to provide necessary medical assistance to the petitioner, to continue medical assistance and to provide home food to all the accused persons. It found that the magistrate court was justified in remanding the petitioner herein including the other accused.
The allegation against Reddy is that he was the main conspirator and orchestrator behind the attack. He allegedly met the residents before the visit of the Collector was planned and riled them up with speeches, provided financial assistance, and also promised to protect them if the attack was carried out as planned.
In his petition, Reddy mainly challenged his arrest contending it to be against the provisions of the BNSS. That he was picked up while he was on a walk at KBR Park and none of his family members were informed regarding his arrest.
He also argued that he was not on the scene of the crime and was arrayed as the prime accused (A1) due to political rivalry.
While dismissing the petition, Justice K Lakshman noted that apart from the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal the relevant provision of the BNSS that relate to laws of arrest are, sections 37 (the designated officer who can make an arrest), 47 (accused should be informed of grounds), 48 (information to be given), 53(medical examination of arrested person to be conducted) and 62 (arrest to be made only following above-mentioned procedure).
While pursuing section 48, the Bench noted that it is not mandatory to inform a family member about the arrest of an individual, the said information can be given to any friend or person so identified by the accused individual. The Bench noted that in the present case, one Mr. Saleem who was identified by the accused was informed about the arrest.
“Section 48(1) of BNSS also says that the Investigating Officer shall forthwith give information regarding arrest of the petitioner and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relative, friend or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated Police Officer in the District. Thus, it is not mandatory for the Investigating Officer to inform arrest of the petitioner only to his wife or relative. Information can be given to friend or any person disclosed or nominated by the petitioner/A-1,” it said.
The court also clarified that as long as the procedure for arrest is followed, it is not mandatory that the police have to arrest the petitioner only at his residence. The petitioner had filed photographs to contend that the Police have forcibly arrested the petitioner by throwing him into vehicle; the court however said that it cannot take cognizance of photographs to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was illegally arrested. It also noted that the arrest was made after checking the phone records of the Accused no.1 with that of the other accused.
“The Investigating Officer also referred the call data of A.1 with other accused and also basing on the evidence collected during investigation, came to prima facie conclusion that the petitioner herein is a prime conspirator. He has rendered assistance to other accused including financial, moral etc. Therefore, according to the Investigating Officer effecting the arrest of the petitioner is compulsory,” it said.
Background
The case pertains to the alleged attack that took place on the District Collector and other officials when they approached the residents of Lagcherla Village for the purpose of conducting public hearing with regard to establishment of Pharma Company.
According to the complaint, the State officials initially organized a meeting with the residents on the outskirts of Lagcherla Village. However, at the prompting of one of the accused, the State authorities agreed to meet the residents in the central part of the village.
It has been alleged that when the State officials arrived there, the residents were armed with sticks, huge rocks, and chili powder chanting the slogan 'go back pharma city'. It was alleged that the State officials were ambushed, their vehicles were heavily damaged and all of them sustained some injuries.
It was noted that the name of the petitioner is not there in the said complaint. During the course of investigation, his name was shown as A1 and he was arrested on November 13 remanded to judicial custody till November 27
When the complaint was registered and a preliminary investigation was conducted, it was alleged that the petitioner was the prime conspirator who played vital role in preparation and provoking the farmers of Hakimpet, Polepally, Rotibanda Thanda, Pulicherlakunta and Lagcherla of Dudyal Mandal, by directing the accused B.Suresh to the affected villages for brain washing indoctrinate the minds of farmers against the government policy. It was alleged that he has also provided all amenities including financial and moral assistance to the accused and diverted the attention of the accused in order to create hurdles to the government officials by attacking them with an intention to kill them while conducting survey or public hearing at the time of land acquisition, otherwise, it will be difficult to them.
The Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the arrest was agasint the provisions of the BNSS, the guidelines laid down in the case of DK Base, and ultravires to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It was also contended that the injuries caused to the State officials were minor and thus the remand was irrational.
The Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the attack was only facilitated due to the financial and moral support accorded by A1. Video evidence was provided to prove that the accused intended to end the lives of the State officials and the Officials escaped right in the nick of time.
The Bench, declined to take the video evidence into consideration at this point and noted that, that was a matter for trial to decide. However, the Bench noted that the call logs that were taken into consideration by the Trial Court while passing the order of remand invariably tie the accused to the incident.
Justice Lakshman also noted that in such incidents the investigation/interrogation cannot be completed in one day, thus justifying the remands.
Lastly, the Court reconsidered that the petitioner/accused had also gotten a lawyer to represent him in the remand proceedings, leading the Bench to believe that all procedure relating to arrest was followed.
“In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the contentions of Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that police did not follow the procedure laid down under BNSS and also principles laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court while effecting arrest of the petitioner are untenable. The learned Magistrate is perfectly right in remanding the petitioner/A.1 to judicial custody on satisfying himself that all the facts, material, perusal of remand case diary, its enclosures, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein and others for the aforesaid offences are well-founded and that prima facie material is available against the petitioner/A-1 and other accused. The impugned order is reasoned and well founded. It does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.”
Case title: Patnam Narender Reddy vs. State of TS
CrlP 13953/2024
Counsel for petitioner: Sr. Gandra Mohan Rao appearing on behalf of T.V. Rammana Rao
Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor for the State of TS.