Prabir Purkayastha v. Sfate

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused no.2 on Bail in connection with Crime No 43812024 dated 23-1 1-2024PS Kacheguda, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Raghu Gurram Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I l THEi HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKI\RAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.108 ot 1',)25 / ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 and 432 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023') challenging the remand order dated 24.11.2024 in Orime No43B of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Chief Judicial [7t3,3istrate, FAC lV Additional Chief Judicial tulagistrate, Hyderabad againr;t the petitioner- accused No.2

2. Heard lvlr.Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.11 2024 at about

10.00 am., on credible information the police apprehended seven persons including the petitioner at Parcel Office, Kachiguda Railway Station, who were in possession of gunny bags and back bags (four bags in all) and the search revealed that they were in possession of 57 ganja packets wrapped in brown packing tape totally weighing up to 1 1 9.6 Kgs. Accordingly, they were arrested and produc€,d them before the Magistrate. r! \ /R.J C RL. R.('..\o. I r)x r | )0) 5 4. The solitary ground raised by the petitioner-accused No.2 is that after apprehension, the petitioner was not produced before the concerned li4agistrate within 24 hours as contemplated under Sections 57 and 167 (1) of Cr.P.C as such the remand order stands vitiated and such action has effected his fundamental rights. Therefore, as per the settled position he entitled to be released by quashing the remand order. ln this regard, the petitioner pointed out the Column No.8 of the FlR, wherein the time of taking into custody is recorded as 10.58 hours on 23.11.2024 and in the remand order passed by the V Addrtional Chief Judicial lVlagistrate, Hyderabad, it has been mentioned that the petitioner-accused No.2 was produced before the Court at 01.00 pm on 24.11.2024. Thus, the prosecution record is clinching the fact that the remand was beyond 24 hours. ln support the petitioner cited the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12912 ot 2024, Prabir Purkayastha v. Sfate (NCf of Delhi)l and D.K.Basu v. Sfate of West Bengal2 and prayed for quashment of the remand order.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused who were apprehended on suspicion at 10.58 hours on

23.11.2024, however arrested on 16.10 hours on 23.11.2024 and they were produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours He fu rther ' 2024 INsc q t+ '(ZOtS) g Supremc Coun Cases 744 .,) NT'R,J ( R', R.C.No.l08 rf 2025 pleads that the accused were apprehended with contraband for the offences under NDPS Act and they belong to other Sltate, as such, their arrest was effected after requisite information to lhe relatives of the accused persons. Thus, prayed for considering the c;ircumstances.

6. lhave perused the materials on record

7. Section 57 and 167(1) of Cr.P.C in clear terms contemplate that the persons arrested cannot be detained more than 24 hours by the police and specifies procedure when an investigatiorr cannot be completed within the inilial 24 hours of arrest. Admitted v, there is no other proceeding put-forth by the prosecution that irny remedial measures were taken under law for extension of time tc produce the accused before the Magistrate atler 24 hours. That apart, detaining any person in custody beyond 24 hours without lawful aulhority would stand in contravention of fundamental rights under Arlicle 22 (2) of the Constitution of lndia. B. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha tcited supra) and this Court in W P.No.21912 of 2024 has clearly helc that the 24 hours contemplated under Section 57 of Cr.P.C would conre into effect from the time of apprehension. Considering this position the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No..12912 oI 2024 in [)ara Nos.12 and 25 held as follows J- 'I 4 *TR-J CRL.R.C.No.l08 of )025 :...12. Accordingly this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that question No. 1 as regards the commencement of the period of apprehension is concerned, it is held that the period of apprehension,S a/so lo be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the period of 24 hours as ls enylsaged under Section 57 of Cr.P.C. ln other words, 24 hours is not to be calculated from the time of the official arrest being shown by the police personnel in the arrest memo, but from the time he was initially apprehended or taken into custody. ln view of the same, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate only after completion of 24 hours from the time they were apprehended. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 were produced before the Judicial hlagistrate before completion of 24 hours. Therefore, there is clear violation of the statutory requirement under Section 57 of C|.P.C so far as accused No.3 and 4 are concerned, and they are accordingly liable to be given the benefit for the illegal act which the respondent authorities have committed

9. ln the instant case as it is clear by the record that the apprehension is at 1 0.58 am on 23.1 1 .2024 and remand hour is at

1.00 pm on 2411.2024, it has to be held that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours. By the settled law it has to be held that the remand order is against contemplations of the law. ln effect, the impugned remand order against the petitioner stands vitiated and consequent remand of the petitioner. Accordingly, the remand order dated 24.11.2024 in respect of the petitioner- accused No.2 is set aside and the respondents are directed to set free the petitioner from the custody, however on furnishing bail and bonds as prescribed by the Court below, to its satisfaction i N TR.J ('RL.lt C.h'o.108 of )0) 5

10. ln the above terms, this criminal revision case is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand c;losed sd/. r- [) SHMI BABU REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// I: ON OFFICER The V Additiorral Chief Judicial ltrlagistrate, FAC lV Addit onal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.(with records, if any) The Superintendent, Central Prison, at Chanchalguda. The Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI One CC to Mr Raghu Gurram, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies / To,

2. J. 4. E ti_ HIGH COURT DATED:091A412025 ORDER CRLRC.No.108 of 2025 I .:, . ... ott *.,' \t:% " \.i:. ,:g),. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE lK