Delay in Producing Accused Before Magistrate Violates Article 22(2): Telangana HC

Producing An Accused Before Magistrate Beyond 24 Hrs Without Obtaining Any Transit Warrant Is Violative Of Article 22(2) Of Constitution: Telangana HC
Without displaying any inhibition of any kind whatsoever and coming out most vocally espousing the supremacy of safeguarding most strictly the legal rights of the accused which is imperative for the healthy functioning of any democratic country in consonance with what is enshrined so laudably in Article 22(2) of our Constitution, we see that in the fitness of things the Telangana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Guntupalli Srinivas Rao vs The State of Telangana in Criminal Revision Case No. 781 of 2024 that was pronounced just recently on September 30, 2024 has minced just no words to say in no uncertain terms that producing an accused before a Magistrate beyond 24 hours without obtaining any transit warrant is violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. We thus see in this leading case that the Telangana High Court most commendably took the brilliant decision to set aside the remand order clarifying that a subsequent remand order made by the Magistrate would not legalise the prior detention which was against the Constitutional and legal mandate. Consequently, we find that while striking the right note, the Telangana High Court while allowing the petition deemed it entirely fit to set aside the remand order and also directed the accused to be set at liberty by granting bail. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Sri Justice EV Venugopal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Challenge in this criminal revision case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, is to the remand order dated 18.07.2024 passed against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.19 of 2024 of PS, EOW, Cyberabad on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “Crime in FIR No.19 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC was registered against the petitioner and three others by the PS, EOW, Cyberabad basing on the complaint lodged by one Kartheek Motamarri, the defacto complainant, alleging that he was induced and misrepresented by Shilpa (A4), stated to be the Marketing Partner of M/s.GSR Infra Group, making him to believe that they were constructing villas in the land admeasuring Ac.16.00 by obtaining HMDA approval and offered a villa admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards and 2500 SFT in Sy.No.298, Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal for lesser price as a pre-launch offer and obtained Rs.1.17 Crores through cheques and online transactions to GSR Infra Private Ltd., (A1) bank account bearing A/c.No.410805500101 from September, 2023 to October, 2023 and issued cash receipts to that effect, signed by Guntapalli Srinivas Rao (A2), Managing Director of M/s.GSR Infra Luxurious Villas LLP.
3(a) Further, A2, on behalf of A1, executed agreement of sale dated 21.10.2023 stating that he is acquiring land in Sy.Nos.298, 347 and 351 of Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. Further, A2 promised the de-facto complainant to register land admeasuring 350 Sq.Yards instead of 200 Sq.Yards as security assurance within a week in his favour and after receiving approvals from concerned departments the project will be completed within three years and executed an un-registered agreement of sale on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper vide No.BA274180 on 21.10.2003. However, inspite of repeated persuasions A2 postponed registration of the land, as agreed, in favour of the de-facto complainant. Accordingly, on suspicion, when the de-facto complainant visited the office of A2, he, while giving two typed documents as assurance, stated that on or before 25.01.2024 he would register the document or otherwise he would repay the amount with 24% interest by 31.03.2024.
3(b) Subsequently, the de-facto complainant came to know that there were some issues between the land lords and the accused and when he enquired A2 regarding the said issues, he admitted stating that the landlords are demanding more amounts. On that occasion, the de-facto complainant observed some other individuals including Sudheer Kolipakula and Kishore Kasam asking security for the amounts paid by them. Then A2 stated that he had purchased development rights of the land admeasuring Ac.10.13 Gts., in Sy.No.352, Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District from Bricmor Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and assured the de-facto complainant that he would accommodate 5000 Sq.Yards in place of 2500 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.298 in Villa Project. He further told the de-facto complainant that he is going to construct multi-storeyed residential apartments and executed MOUs on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper vide BB575067 in favour of the de-facto complainant dated 15.02.2024 and stated that he paid amounts to the landlords in respect of land covered under Sy.No.298. A2 also executed allotment letters to nearly 32 members in the month of February, 2024 stating that he will provide flats in high-rise residential apartment in Sy.No.352 according to the payments made by them in villa projects. The de-facto complainant further came to know that A2 is absconding and that he handed over construction works to Anvita Built Pro. LLP. The said Anvita Built Pro., LLP did not give any assurance to the defacto complainant and others for their investments and allotment of residences, as agreed by A2.
3(c) Since the accused, particularly A2 and A4, cheated the de-facto complainant and others on the pretext of constructing villas in Sy.No.298, Kollur Village, RC Puram Mandal, Sangareddy District and collected huge amounts to a tune of Rs.60 crores from them and is absconding and without the knowledge of the intending purchasers including the de-facto complainant, A2 had handed over construction works to Anvita Built Pro.LLP, who did not give any assurance for the investments made by the de-facto complainant and others, the de-facto complainant got registered the present complaint.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “Accordingly, on the directions of DCP, EOW, Cyberabad, the case was registered on 15.06.2024 by LW10/SHO against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC and investigation was entrusted to LW11/P.Vijaykumar, Inspector, EOW PS, Cyberabad. Subsequently in view of transfer of LW11, further investigation was conducted by LW12/B.Narahari, Inspector of Police, EOW PS, Cyberabad, who, on reliable information, apprehended the petitioner/A2 near Red Rose Mart, Engine Bowli, Falaknuma, Hyderabad on 17.07.2024 duly informing the grounds of arrest, brought him to EOW Police Station, Cyberabad at 09.30 p.m. on 17.07.2024 along with his car bearing No.TS 08 GN 4009 and after investigation effected his arrest and after completing all procedural formalities produced him before the concerned Magistrate at 09.45 p.m. on 18.07.2024. The trial Court had accepted the remand holding that prima-facie case and grounds for arrest of the petitioner are well founded and accordingly remanded him to judicial custody till 11.08.2024.”
As we see, the Bench discloses in para 5 that, “Accused No.1 is a firm. So far as accused No.3 is concerned, as per orders of this Court vide Crl.P.No.7128 of 2024, dated 16.07.2024 notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was served on him. So far as accused No.4 is concerned, as per orders of this Court vide Crl.P.No.7083 of 2024, dated 10.07.2024, she was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 30.07.2024 and in turn the Investigating Officer was directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) BNSS.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 10 propounding that, “Personal liberty is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof, as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also Section 57 Cr.P.C., require that person arrested or detained in custody should be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate, and that no such person should be detained beyond such period without the authority of the Magistrate. The Criminal procedure Code also made a similar provision in respect of persons arrested without warrant. The Magistrates will not allow remand of the accused to custody under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., or allow remand under Section 309 of Cr.P.C., without satisfying themselves that there are reasonable grounds for such remand.”
Do note, the Bench then notes in para 11 stating that, “A cautious reading of Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the officer in-charge of the police station or the investigating officer can ask for remand only when there are grounds to believe that the accusation or information is well founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours as specified under Section 57 of the Act. Hence, Magistrate’s power to give remand is not mechanical and adequate grounds must subsist if Magistrate wants to exercise his power of remand. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1983 CriLJ 109 case held that the remand order sheet need not look like a judgment delivered after full trial but application of mind must be evident.”
Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 17 what constitutes the real cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “When the above facts and circumstances as well as the settled proposition of law laid down in this regard are considered, this Court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 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 legalize the prior detention which was against the constitutional and legal mandate. As such, producing the petitioner/A2 before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours without obtaining any transit warrant is considered as a violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and in that view of the matter, the petitioner/A2 is entitled to be released by setting aside the impugned order. However, it is made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner to be released is only due to the procedural flaw on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing him before the nearest judicial Magistrate within the stipulated timeframe of 24 hours but not based on the merits of the case.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by most sagaciously holding in para 18 that, “In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order of remand dated 18.07.2024 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. Consequently, the accused/A2 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith by granting bail by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar to its satisfaction upon such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper; if he is languishing in jail as on date and if he is not required in any other case. The petitioner shall co-operate for smooth completion of investigation. 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. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”