Telangana High Court Sets Aside Remand Order, Reaffirms 24-Hour Time Limit For Producing Accused Before Magistrate
The Telangana High Court has set aside a remand order, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards regarding arrest and production before a magistrate within 24 hours. The court held that producing an accused before a magistrate beyond the 24-hour limit without obtaining a transit warrant violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.
This ruling was made in a Criminal Revision petition by Justice E.V. Venugopal. The case involved a challenge to the remand order dated 18.07.2024 passed against the petitioner (accused No.2).
Background:
The events unfolded on 17.07.2024 when the accused was intercepted at 7:30 PM near Red Rose Mart, Engine Bowli, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. He was subsequently brought to the EOW Police Station, Cyberabad at 9:30 PM on the same day. After interrogation, the accused was formally arrested. However, he was only produced before the Magistrate at 9:45 PM on 18.07.2024, more than 24 hours after the initial interception. The Magistrate then remanded the accused to judicial custody till 11.08.2024.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the arrest was against the constitutional provision and fundamental right safeguarded under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of Cr.P.C. They contended that the accused was produced before the court after 24 hours of his arrest, making the entire arrest process an otiose exercise. Furthermore, they alleged that the investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 50A of Cr.P.C. regarding intimation of arrest to family members. The counsel also argued that the Magistrate accepted the remand without proper application of mind and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused's counsel.
On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that there was no violation in the production of the petitioner for remand attributable to the investigating agency. They maintained that the trial court, having satisfied that no ill-treatment or violations were committed, had rightly accepted the remand of the petitioner.
In its reasoning, the court emphasized that personal liberty is a cherished object of the Indian Constitution, and its deprivation must be in accordance with the law. The court referred to Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 Cr.P.C., which require that a person arrested or detained in custody should be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest.
The court found that the delay in producing the accused before the Magistrate was not justified by the distance between the place of arrest and the court. Moreover, the investigating officer failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay, merely stating that the confessional statement could not be recorded due to it being late at night.
Consequently, the court held that producing the accused before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours without obtaining a transit warrant violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution. It further stated that the subsequent remand order by the Magistrate does not legalize the prior detention, which was against the constitutional and legal mandate.
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.781 of 2024
Guntupalli Srinivas Rao vs. State of TS
Counsel for petitioner: YEMMIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY
Counsel for the respondent: APP