‘Magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically': Telangana HC sets aside man's judicial remand over 24-hour norm
Justice N Tukaramji pronounced the order while allowing a criminal revision after the petitioner's counsel, Mohammed Azhar, argued that the remand order was invalid on several grounds.
Following an FIR at Malakpet police station, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the magistrate after the mandatory 24-hour period from the time of detention. The counsel for the petitioner substantiated this claim by citing the remand case diary, which recorded the apprehension at approximately 10.15 pm on July 7 this year and production before the court at about 11.35 pm on July 8. This delay of approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes, beyond the 24-hour period under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, rendered the remand illegal.
Additional Public Prosecutor Jithender Rao Veeramalla conceded that the petitioner was produced beyond the 24-hour period from the time of arrest.
Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel contended that the alleged offences, which fall under sections 318(4) and 204 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another and Section 41A of the CrPC/35(3) of the BNSS, the counsel argued that the petitioner should have been served with a notice for appearance instead of being arrested.
'It has been expressly directed that magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically but must record detailed and reasoned orders reflecting judicial satisfaction. Failure to comply with these directives renders the remand unlawful and invites judicial or departmental scrutiny,' the order read.
The court found that the impugned remand order in this case merely noted the fact of production and other details without addressing the legality of the arrest, the delay in production, or the statutory mandates. 'While these grounds may provide a basis for arrest in theory, they must be assessed in light of the procedural safeguards mandated by law and judicial precedent. The record fails to show that the magistrate made such an assessment,' the order read.
As a result of these findings, the court set aside the remand order and directed the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to take immediate steps to secure the release of the petitioner.
Within one week of his release, the petitioner is required to execute a personal bond for Rs 10,000 and furnish two sureties of the same amount. The petitioner must also remain available and cooperate with the ongoing judicial proceedings, the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court allows Uphaar victims to assist police in prosecuting realtor in passport renewal case
NEW DELHI A Delhi court has allowed 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy victims to assist the Delhi Police in prosecuting realtor Sushil Ansal in a case accusing him of fraudulently getting his passport renewed. (Shutterstock) A Delhi court has allowed 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy victims to assist the Delhi Police in prosecuting realtor Sushil Ansal in a case accusing him of fraudulently getting his passport renewed. The order was passed by chief judicial magistrate Shriya Agrawal of the Patiala House Court on Monday, allowing a plea moved by Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a court to grant permission—other than to a police officer below the rank of Inspector— to conduct the prosecution in a case. The section essentially ensures that a complainant could participate in the prosecution through their counsel and assist the prosecutor, representing the police. The court said, '…it is observed that the association at the instance of which, the law was set into motion in the present case ought to get a right of assisting the prosecution, to which liberty, there is no bar in law…as opposed to being given the reigns of the prosecution itself, the Association is at liberty to assist the prosecution in the present case'. Sushil Ansal, 77, one of the convicts in the case pertaining to the Uphaar fire mishap, is also accused of getting his passport renewed by concealing his criminal antecedents and not obtaining the requisite no-objection certificate from the court. Following a writ petition filed by AVUT in the Delhi High Court, a case of cheating was lodged by the Delhi Police Crime Branch in 2019. In November 2007, a decade after the tragedy that killed 59 people, a trial court convicted realty tycoons Gopal Ansal and his brother Sushil Ansal, among others, and sentenced them to two years in prison, the maximum sentence the law provides for causing death due to negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In December 2008, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year. In February 2017, the Supreme Court directed the two of them to pay a fine of ₹30 crore each, for the construction of a trauma centre. While Sushil, who spent a little over five months in jail, was let off for the period already served on account of his age (then 77), then 68-year-old Gopal Ansal was directed to undergo one year of imprisonment. In July 2022, a Delhi court convicted the brothers in another case pertaining to the fire, related to tampering with and destroying evidence. The brothers were let off by the court in the case for the period already served by them during the pendency of the case. The case pertaining to passport forgery, where only Sushil Ansal stands as an accused, is currently at the stage of arguments on framing of charges at the Patiala House Courts. In its plea, AVUT, led by Neelam Krishnamoorthy, who lost her two children in the tragedy, represented by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, highlighted that the victims had been at the forefront of the battle for justice and had closely tracked and assisted all hearings in the previous two cases against the Ansals. The plea also pointed out several grievances in the Delhi Police's investigation and filing of the charge sheet. Meanwhile, Sushil, through his Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, opposed the plea, stating that AVUT had no locus standi to address arguments on charge and prosecute Ansal as they were mere complainants.
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court mandates compensation for accidents during office commute
The Supreme Court has ruled that employees and their families will be entitled to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, not just for accidents occurring during the course of work but also for mishaps while commuting to and from their place of employment. The Supreme Court judgment came in a case involving Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, a watchman at a sugar factory in Maharashtra.(Vipin Kumar/ Hindustan Times) In a significant verdict broadening the scope of workers' rights and social welfare protection, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan interpreted the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of employment' in Section 3 of EC Act to include commuting accidents, provided a clear nexus is established between the time, place and circumstances of the accident and the employment. This liberal interpretation, authored by Justice Viswanathan and delivered in a case involving the death of a sugar factory watchman on his way to work, is a progressive step in expanding the social security framework for millions of workers across India, especially those not covered under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) scheme. 'We interpret the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of employment' under Section 3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty,' the court said in its July 28 ruling. It clarified that the benefit of this interpretation is contingent on showing a clear nexus between the time, place and circumstances of the accident and the employment. That is, if a worker meets with an accident during a routine and timely commute to or from the workplace, it may qualify as employment-related for compensation purposes. The judgment came in a case involving Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, who worked as a watchman at a sugar factory in Maharashtra. His shift on April 22, 2003, was scheduled from 3 AM to 11 AM. While commuting to work in the early hours, his motorcycle met with a fatal accident around 5 km from the factory. He left behind his widow, four children, and his mother. A claim under EC Act was allowed by the commissioner for workmen's compensation and civil judge, Osmanabad, who awarded ₹3,26,140 as compensation along with 12% annual interest, and also directed the employer to pay 50% of the amount as penalty. The employer's insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. However, the Bombay High Court reversed the award, holding that since the accident occurred outside the precincts of the factory, it could not be said to have arisen out of employment. Setting aside the high court's ruling, the top court restored the commissioner's award and reaffirmed that the commute to work can form an integral part of employment under EC Act if the contextual nexus is established. The court drew from Section 51E of ESI Act, which was introduced in 2010 and explicitly provides that commuting accidents, if there is a connection between the circumstances, time and place, are deemed to have occurred in the course of employment. While EC Act does not have such a specific provision, the top court held that since both statutes are beneficial legislation aimed at social welfare and worker protection, they are 'statutes in pari materia' (dealing with the same subject matter). Hence, the interpretation under one can inform the other. 'Both the EC Act and the ESI Act seek to ameliorate the conditions of workmen and provide them social security benefits,' stated the judgment, noting that EC Act applied to all other employers and employees not covered under ESI scheme. The court cited its own 2016 ruling in Jaya Biswal Vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co to reaffirm that EC Act is a social welfare legislation, meant to secure minimum protection and compensation for workers, with reduced legal formality and regardless of fault.
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Sexual Violence By Parent Tears Through Foundational Fabric Of Familial Trust": Top Court
New Delhi: Observing incestuous sexual violence by a parent "tears through" the foundational fabric of familial trust, the Supreme Court has upheld a man's punishment for raping his minor daughter. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Kumar called the dignity of women "non-negotiable" while asking the legal system not to permit repeated intrusion into that dignity under the "guise of misplaced sympathy" or purported "procedural fairness". Justice, the August 4 order said, must not be limited to conviction and must include restitution. The top court further directed Rs 10.50 lakh to be paid to the survivor as compensation under the state of Himachal Pradesh. "Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response," the order read. The apex court said entertaining a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. "When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security," the bench said. The top court was acting on the appeal of the man against a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 6 (sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. The court said such offences deserve severest condemnation and deterrent punishment. To pardon such depravity under any guise would be a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the child protection mandate embedded in our constitutional and statutory framework, the verdict added. The bench went on to quote Manusmriti, as saying, 'Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatā, yatraitaastu na pūjyante sarvāstatra aphalā kriyā (where women are honoured, divinity flourishes and where they are dishonoured, all acts become fruitless)." The top court said this verse reflects not merely a cultural principle but a constitutional vision. The court rejected the man's prayer for interim bail saying, "Our judicial conscience does not permit casual indulgence in a prayer for interim relief of bail where the conviction has been rendered." The bench said entertaining petition would mean betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in the country. "It would be a judicial insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a blow to every mother who teaches her child to believe in justice." The order continued, "When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform." PTI PKS PKS AMK AMK
