The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Md.Nayeemuddin, S/o not known to petitioner Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, PS N/loinabad ... Res po nd en UC om pla ina nt Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Crime No.217 of 2025 on the file of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate against the petitioners lA-13 and 14- l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners/A- 1 3 and 14 in Crime No.217 oI 2025 on the file of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Venugopal, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .l THE HOI'I'BLE SHRI JLISTICE ANIL KUMAF: JUKANTI CiiIIMINAL PETITI oN No.8294 OF 21025 ORDER: 'I'his Cr iminal Petition is liled under Secti()n 528 ol the Bharatil'a Nirgarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioners/ zrccused Nos.13 and 14 to quash the proceedings against thenr in FIR No.217 ol 2025 on the filt' of Moinabad Police Statior-r, Cvberabacl Cornmissionerate. Ihe offences alleged agairrst petitioncrs are under Sections 1.+3(3), 141(2), 223,292 rrr' 49 of BNS, Sections 3, 4 and 5 or the Irnmoral Traffic (Preve rtion) nr:t, 195.6 (for shr>rt 'PIT Act'l Section B(c) r/u' 20(b)(ii)(r\), 25, 29 of Nzrrcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances t\ct, 1985, (fo; short 'NDPS Act') and Section 34(a) Telanqa na Excise Act, i968.

2. Heard l'1r. S.Venugopal, learned counsel lor petitioners and Mr. E.(iiLnesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the responde:-rt - State. Perused the material on record.

3. Complaint is by Sub-[nspector (SI) of' Police, on receiving creclible information at 01:30 AM that a Mujra party was invoiving use of ganja and hukah was taking place JAK,J Crt.P.No.8294 o1202 5 at Holiday Home Farmhouse in the outskirts of Yathbarpalli l Village, search proceedings were taken after obtaining permission from ACP Chevelia. Complaint is lodged by the SI cf Police to the [nspector of Police, Moinabad. 21 material objects u'erc seized during the search, including Ganja, 62 grams ald certain other materials i.e., liquor bottles, etc. In all l8 individuals u,ere named. Petitioners are arraved als accused Nos. 13 ancl 14. On a perusal of the record, it is observcd that the entire operation of search, seizure and arrest, were undertaken by the Sub Inspector of Police and FIR c.rme to be registered on 09 .O4.2O25 under Sections 143(3), 144(2),223,292 r/w 49 of BNS, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PIT Act, Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, 29 of NDPS Act and Section 34(a) Telangana Excise Act. The contents of the FIR reflected the contents of the complaint and commission ol olfences.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioncrs/ accused Nos. 13 and 14 submitted that accused Nos. 13 ar-rd 14 along with others were produced before Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additiona-l Judicial Magistrate ol First Class by the Police personnei I I I _= -a:- 1 JAK.I Crl. I'.No.8294 o1' 2025

10.O4.2025.,t O0:30 hours in Crime No.217 of 2025. Learned Judge after :ecording the entire facts and upon entries made in the generll dian and the rernand report case diary has held that th,- 21-.""1 of accuscd persons is 4ot rn accordance with law, thr- remand was rejected and the accused persons \ rere release.i immediatelv

5. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered [ :e submissions

6. Section 13 of the PIT Act, is as follows: "tr3. Special police officer and advisory body.- (l) There shall bc fcr each arca to bc specihed by the Statc Government in this bchalf a special police' oIficer appointr:d by or on behali of that Government, for dealing .r'ith oft'ences unde r this Act in that area. (2) The r;pecial police officer shall not be belou, the ra,nk of an Inspector of Police. (2A) The District Magistrate ma_v-, il he considers it necessar-r' or expedient so to do, conler upon any retired police or military officcr :rll or any of thc powers conferre:i by or under this Act on a special police o{Iicer, with resoect to particular cascs or classes of cases or to cases generally: Provided that no such pouer shall be conferred on,- (a) a:-etired police officer unless such officer, at the time of his retirement, was holding a post not beiow the rank of zrn inspcctor; (b) a retired military officcr unlcss such ofhcer, at the time of his rctirement, was holding a post not below the rank of ir commissioned officer. (3) For the efficient discharge of his functions in relation to olfencr s under this Act,- (a) the special police officer ol an area shall be assisted :y such number of subordinate police offrcers l JAK,J Crl.l'.No.8294 of 2025 (including u,omen police officers wherever practicable) as the State Government may think fit; and (b) the State Oovernment may associate $,ith the special police olficer a non-official advisory body consisting of not more than five leading social welfare workers of that arca (including women social wclfare workcrs wherever practicable) to advise him on questions of general importernce regarding the working oI this Act. (4) The Centrzrl Government may, for the purpose of investigating zrnv oflence under this Act or under any olher law for the time being in force deaiing with sexual exploitation of persons and committed in more than one State, a point such number of police officcrs as tra-fhcking police ofhcers and they shall exercise all the po\ /ers and discharge aII the functions as are exercisable by specizrl police officers under this Act with the modification that they shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions in relation to the u,hole of India." 7 . As per Section 13 of the PIT Act, officer not below the rank ol Inspector of Police has to give effect to the provisions of PIT ACt.

8. In the present case, the SI of Police has undertaken the acts of entering the place after seeking permission from ACP Chevella, searched the farm house on 09.O4.2025, seized the objects on the basis of search warrant from ACP and on the whole made a list of 18 individuals with their details including names, addresses, phone numbers and occupations on the ground that they were playing loud music and they found 11 men with 5 semi-naked women dancing in a vulgar manner. It is also observed from the complaint that I l lAK,.l Crl P.No.8294 of 2025 Police pers,rnnel searched and confirmed thirt they had no illegal item,r. SI of Police searched the bed room and found certain dri,. d green leaves rvrapped ln ncrr,sprint emitting a strong odor described as Ganja. Police en cl.restioning the women, dis;closed that thev n,ere being paid I(s.2,000/ per night. Basirrg on these facts, FIR calne to be registered under various Sec:ions.

9. Section 5O of the NDPS is as follor,r,s: ' 5O. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.- (l ) When aly officer dul5' authorised under section 42 is about to se:rrch arl1' pcrson under the prol,islons of scction 41, sectlon 42 or sectior:L 43, he shall, if such person so rcquires, take such trrcrson vrithout unnecessary clelay to nearest Gazett,:d Officer of any of thc departments menlioned in seclior:. 42 or to the neetrest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is madc, the oflrccr mav detain thc pcrson until hc can bring him bcfore the Llazetted Officer ';r the Magistrate rcferred to in sub,section (l). (3) The Gazetted Olficer or the Magistrate befort: u,hom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No l'emale shall be searched b_v anyone excepting a lemale (5) When an ofhcer duly authonsed under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to rakc the person lo be searched to thc nearcst Gazettcd Olficer or Magistr-ate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article ,;r document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest GazeLLed Ofhcer or Magistrate, proceecl to scarch the pcrson as provided under section I OO of the Code of Criminal procedurc, l9'/3 (2 of t974t. 6 JAK,J Crl.P.No.8294 o12025 (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the ofl'icer shali record the reasons for such belief which nccessitated such search and s,ithin seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."

10. As per Section 50 ol the NDPS Act, a gazetted officer should bc present or it is in the presence of gazette officer, seizure should be effected and the sarne has not been followed. 1 1. A perusal of the provisions of NDPS Act and PIT Act, make it abundantly clear that under both the acts the requirement is that an officer of the rank of Inspector is the authorized to give to effect to the provisions of PIT Act and Section 5O of NDPS Act. In the present case, it is the SI of Police obtaining permission from the ACP Chevella, has donned the role of Inspector of Police and has performed the acts of search, seizure and even remanding petitioners/ accused (in all 18 in number) before the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate rejected the remand on the ground that arrest ol the accused persons is not in accordance with law. Though, the Magistrate considered the Hon'lcle Apex Court judgment in his remand rejection order, the aspect ofjurisdiction was not gone into. The order of the Magistrate is as follows: I 1 JAK.J Crl P.No.8194 ol'2025 'Thus, the available material on recortl for this court to pass appropriate order at tfris stagc is RCD, Gener.:,1 Diar5r, Crime Dctail Form, Con[essr,rn cunr Seizltrr' panchanama and medical certificates of the zrcctrsr:rl persons. I'hc LD. Advocatc rcprcs€nting all thc accusc(l except AIO submits that the arrest was madc on 08.04.11025 between 0830 PM to 0930 PM. Ile sr:bmits that llrL' CCTV and DVR rs not produced by th,' 1:olir c. rt is fi.rrlher submitted that there was DVR at rhe farnr house also ard even the same is not hled bclore tht: court. ['{e contends that as per the RCD, the accuseri pcrsor i allegedly bookccl the farm house. Hou'cver, thr: bookir'1 rcgistcr or the D\rR is not filed before tlrc court. His ccntcntion is that hc himself went on mt:dia anrl reportcd that the arrest \r,as made on O8.04.llt)25. lle seeks :hat an advocate commissioncr be appoin ted to go PS zlt].I to verify the CCTV cameras as u'her he u'as there r 1e same were functioning. He alstr subrriits tl-rat Sec. 113(3) BNS does not apply to all the accuserl pcrsonri and therefore the remand shall bc turncd.'lhc Ld. Adr for A10 submits that the CCTV camcras as wer(: ordere: by the Hon'trle Prl. Junior Civil Judpir. RJNFI ald thtl' are not produced before the Court. "he I.d. Adv has filed four photographs c laimrng that th,r multipie CCTV cameras are available at PS. Hr further contend that as per the Judgment ol Hon'blt' Suprenre Court in Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Bal.iit Singi and ()1 1cr, the responsibility is of thc SHO that thc camcrirs shall be functional. He also relie d u y;on tl.rt order of Hon'ble High Court for the State o[ Pu r-rjab in CRM I\1-46240 -2022. He contends that an adverst' infercn,:e shall drawn in far,<.rr of accused pct'sons for vrolatir, r of judicial orders by the t.O. The seconcl contention of the td. Adv is that the accused persons u,erc arrested and produced bcfore Hon'ble Magistratr after expiry of 24 hours. In support of the samr: hc has relied upon the order of Hon'ble High Court for thc stat€ of Tela:rgana, in Crl.Revision Case No. 781 12024 and Judgm('nts the formal arrest has to be considr:red nr.rd the custody commences from the time of form:rl arrest. The Ld Adv also refers to observation of Hon'ble Fligh Court 1.\at the petitioner thercin is released onlv due to the pro:cdural flaw on part of thc prosecuting agency. The thrrd point the Ld. Adv has raised is rhat the grour-rdr; of arrest is not informed to accused a_n tl entire case diaLry is silent upon the same. He contends that the trotict: :rs stipulated lJ /Sec. 47 of BNSS is r:rtt dulv JAK,J Crl.P.No.8294 of 2025 complied and hence the a-rrest is not as per tJle procedure established by law as it does not comply with the mardatorv requircment of the grounds of arrest to be informed lo lhe accused. For detcrmining tl-e above contcntions, it is important to rcfer to the available matcrial at this stage as stated above. Upon perusal of the RCD, the timeline of the events is as under: lTime and Date as per Events RCD 09.O4.2O25 at O 130 AM reccived Policc credible information lntimation to Superior ofhcer U/Sec. 42(2) NDPS Act and made GD Entrv arld Written Report Search Warrant permission ter-lien from ACP Chevella 09.O4.2025 at 0230 AM Informed to Clues Team to comc to PS Clues Team aLncl Palch witnesses reache<i Scene of offence Confession seizure panchanama concluctcd Holidav Farm House Confcssion Seizure Panchanama com leted Complaint III S Home u'as

09.O4.2025 at 0330 AM

09.O4.2O25 at 0530 AM

09.O4.2025 at 1000 AM O9.O4.2O25 at 1 130 AM 1O.O4.2025 at OO30 AM L Time and Date as r General D 09 .O4.2O25 at o 130 AM O9.O4.2O25 at 0140 AM (PC3563 q,ent to Chevella to accord permission for search warranl from ACP Chevella Oq.04.2025 at 0335 AM (started from PS to scene of offence)

09.04.2025 at 11 AM The accuscd were produced before | Hontrle Magistr4lg i- | Upon perusal of the above entries madc in General diary (GD) and RCD it is seen that there is corresponding and col-rerent entries. The GD is a - i I I I 7 I 9 .IAK.J Cri.l'.No.t'129-1 ol' 2025 statutorl' register maintained at every PS in the crdinar)' course :,f oftrcial duty. The entry is made therein zre presumed to have been recorded contemporaneously and in :,ccordance with prescribed procedure. Further, the [xl. .rdvocates have submitted that the CCTV foot:rgc \.crc ncr produced before this court dcspitc the order. Hou.eve:-, thc rcquisition statcs that thc buildings werc under c()nstruction and CCTV foot:rge were dam:rged. It is clear by the citation hled by the Ld. Adv that Lt is thc duty of the SHO to ensure that all thc cameras are this stage, the said functior. rl. However, at document/ electronic record is not produced before this court for consideration. At this stagc of thc procc'cdings, there rs no dispute raised regarding thc authenticity of the corr',rctness of said elttries madc in Gencrai diarl' Based on the material available before this court. arrd in light ,rf the statutory document, it is not desrrable to except the contention of the Ld. Adr' for accused persons at this stage. The next contention is that the grounds of the arrc'st \"crc not informed to accused persons. The lau' m:mrlatrrs that the person arrested has a right to have a rclativc or a lriend or any othcr pcrson named b1 him to be infor;:red of his arrest. The accused/Al statcs rhat his arrest information was givcn to Aman Ali Khan who as per I.O. is his relative. The accused/A3 states that iris arrest irrformation was given to Niloufar who is his fricnd. The accused/A5 states that his arrest informa- on u'as given to Neha Hussain Khal rvho is ]ris Fnencl. The accused/46 states that his arrest informa:Lon was givcn to Niloufar who is her sister. The accuscd, A7 statcs that his arrest information r,r'as given to Bud,, muri Chaithnya Kumari. The I.O. and the accused are unable to determine tJ:e relationshrp. The accused, A8 states that his arrest information was given to Moharnmad Hasham who is the sister of A7 anrd has, not relar onship rvith A8. The accused/A9 statcs rhat his arrcst irrlormation rvas given to Mohammad Hasham A1i. The IaJ. and the accused are unable to deternrine or statc th: rclationship, accused/A10 states that his eirrest in ormation was given to Mohammad Hasham Ali, and t]-e I.O. and accused are unable to determine or state rh,l relationship. The accused A11 states that his arrest in brmation was given to Mohammad Hasham Ali. The IO. and the accused are unable to determine or state the relationship. The accused/Al2 states tl.rat his arrest inlbrmation was given to Gowlikar Ramesh q,ho is his Brolrer. The accused/Al3 states that his arrest information rvas given to Shaik Ameer rvho is his tiiend. l0 JAK,J Crl.t,.No.8294 of 2025 The accused/A14 states that his arrest information was given to Gulam Mushtaq u,ho is his friend. The accused/A15 States rhat his arrest inlormation u,as gir',en to Syed Ismail Ali. The i.O. arrd the accuseC are unable to determine or state the relationship. The accused/A16 states that his arrest informatron rvas given to Md. Hussain ,"vho is his brother. The accused/Al7 states that his arrest information was given to Mohad Hzrneef who is his Brother. The above shows that there is no proper compliance of Sec.48 BNSS. Upon perusal of rhe RCD it is seen that Sec. 47 and 48 BNSS notices were issued to the accused pcrsons and their concerned family/ frir:nds. 'l'he corc contention is with respcct to thc noticc U/Scc. 47 BNSS. A PeruserJ of the notices issued to the accused persons shou, that only the crime number, the scctions, datc anci time are menLioned in the notice. Tl.re notice is silent upon any grounds of zrrrest. lrr this regard, the Judgment passed by the Hon'blc Supremc Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. Statc of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162 bccomcs pertincr-rt. As per the Judgmcnt the word 'communicatc" (rvhich is also rcferred Scc. 47 BNSS) is a strong u'ord. [t means that sufficient knou,ledge of thc basic facts constituting the "Grounds" should be impeuted effectively and fuily to the detenu in writing in a language in which he understalds. The grounds of arrest and the intimation of :rrrest arc two distinct independent requiremcnts cach submits a scparatc purposc. Whi-le intimation of arrest, pertains to informing a nominated person or relativc of arrested individual about the facts and case of arrest, :urticle 22lll of The Constitution of India and Sec. 48 UNSS. In the present case, the notice U/Sec. 48 and 49 BNSS are similar in articulation. Furthermore, thc entire RCD is also silent upon the reason why the arrcst is made and the grounds on basis of which the arrcst is madc. The arrest memo is also silent upon the grounds of arrcst. Further, the GD entry is also siient upon an1' such intimation given to the accused persorrs. 'lhe copy of such grounds are a.lso not furnished. The RCD does not state that orally the grounds of such arrest are read over and explained to them. The above stated citation also concludes by stating that when the accuscd allcges non compllance of the requirement of articlc 22(l) the burden is always be on the I.O. to comply with such requirement. Thus, the requirement un<ler article 22 (l) and Sec. 47 BNSs is not duly complied in its spirit." 7 I To, JAK,J Crl.l'.No.829.1 of 2025

12. It is tlite law that the findings in remancl cannot have influence in a petition under Section 528 oI BNSS or 482 of Cr.P.C. Quash petition has to be dealt on its os.n merits. The act of arrest, (as recordect by the Magistrilte) is not in accordancc ',vith 1aw', coupled with this Cor-rrt's; vierr, that SI of Police lar:ked jurisdiction under both the PIT Act and NDPS Act.

13. This C,rurt is of i.he opinion that procee<irr-rgs in Crime No.2I7 ol ','.025 on the iile ol Moinabad l)olicc Station, Clrberabacl Commissionerate, qua petition crs/:rccuseci Nos. 13 ancl l4 are liable to be quashed and are accordingll' quashed.

11. For th,: aforesaid reasons, this Criminitl [)etitron rs a1lorl'ed. Miscell.rneous applications pending, if anr', shall stand closed. SD/- B.REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR A\S I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Station l-louse Officer, Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 3 One CC to lllr S Venugopal, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Coprr-.s HYderabad. [,])UT] u> Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:25149,2025 b i I ORDER CRLP.No.829,l ot 2025 iHe Si4 ::r J e\ 17 [[T 2[25 ALLOWING TI{E CRIMINAL PE TITION 1-