Delay In Producing Accused Before Magistrate Of Another State Without Transit Warrant Would Render Arrest Illegal: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that a delay in producing an accused before a Magistrate of another State, in the absence of a transit warrant will render the arrest illegal.

The order was passed by Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, in a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-accused challenging a remand order by the Magistrate, despite the accused being produced before the Magistrate 24 hours after his arrest.

The petitioner contended that the police arrested him in Goa, for allegedly possessing ecstasy pills linked to a larger drug trafficking operation. A case was registered against him under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he was brought to Hyderabad for trial.

It was contended that the accused was transported from Goa to Hyderabad without obtaining a transit warrant which violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 167 of the CrPC.

Article 22 (2) of the Constitution: Ensures an arrested person's right to be produced promptly before a magistrate (within 24 hours).

Section 167 of Cr.P.C. requires seeking a transit warrant from a competent magistrate to transport an arrested person across jurisdictional boundaries.

The petitioner claimed his arrest and subsequent remand were illegal.

The prosecution on the other hand contended that the delay in production of the accused before the Magistrate was due to the travel time and also submitted that the transit warrant could not be garnered due to paucity of time.

It was stated that since the Magistrate accepted the remand, the petitioner ought to apply for regular bail and not challenge the remand report.

Findings of the Court:

Dr. Justice Radha Rani after hearing both sides held that it is mandatory as per Article 22(2) of the Constitution to obtain a transit visa to shift any accused from the Jurisdiction of one State to another. It was further held, that the travel time could only be excluded from the 24-hour bracket if the investigating authorities had procured a transit visa. Court held:

“Magistrate remanding the petitioner-accused to judicial custody would not frustrate the legislative mandate of producing him within 24 hours of his arrest. As such, the subsequent remand order made by the Magistrate would not legalise the prior detention which was against the constitutional and legal mandate. Producing the petitioner-A44 before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours without obtaining any transit warrant is considered as violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and the petitioner-A44 is entitled to be released.”

The bench emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards such as timely production and transit warrants to ensure fundamental rights were upheld. While acknowledging the seriousness of the drug charges against the petitioner, the court prioritized the principle that procedural lapses cannot be overlooked even in such cases.

With such observations, the Court ordered the arrest to be set aside. However, observing that the arrest was being set aside on technical grounds and not on merit, certain conditions were imposed:

“He shall appear before the trial/Special Court and also produce proof of his residence and address in the State of Goa and shall give the details of his contact numbers to the Investigating Officer. He shall not indulge in any other cases during his release. Any violation of the above grounds would entail his arrest in accordance with the procedure established under law." the Court clarified.

CrlRC 288 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: Soma Srinath Reddy, representing Nageshwar Rao Pujari

Counsel for respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order