Justice N. Tukaramji observed that judicial remand was being allowed in a mechanical manner despite being legally unsustainable and contrary to guidelines framed by the Supreme Court
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court expressed deep concern over the non-application of mind by magistrates while authorising the remand of accused persons, without assessing statutory prerequisites.
Justice N. Tukaramji observed that judicial remand was being allowed in a mechanical manner despite being legally unsustainable and contrary to guidelines framed by the Supreme Court.
The judge observed that the magistrate must ascertain whether or not custodial detention was warranted. This determination required the magistrate to peruse the case diary and remand report and to examine whether there was a justification for police remand, judicial remand, or no remand at all. A magistrate does not act in an executive capacity when ordering detention, the judge stated.
The judge was dealing with a petition by Syed Dastagiri, student-cum-driver with an app-based bike service, accused of cheating and impersonating a public servant. His remand was allowed by the magistrate court, despite there being no material ground. He was produced before the magistrate beyond the mandatory period of 24 hours and no notices were served under Section 35(3) of BNSS, calling upon the accused to appear before the investigating officer, before arrest.
Mohd Azhar, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the magistrate, without considering crucial procedural lapses, erroneously remanded the petitioner to judicial custody.
The High Court took on record that the petitioner was produced an hour and twenty minutes beyond the prescribed 24-hour period, hence rendering the remand illegal. The court also considered that no notice was served before arresting the petitioner and no prima facie material was placed before the magistrate. The High Court set aside his remand and ordered his release on submission of bonds and sureties.
Justice Tukaramji stated the Supreme Court’s emphasis on granting remand, which said that the magistrate must not authorise the measure mechanically. lf police custody was granted, the magistrate must record that such custody was necessary for the purpose of further investigation, recovery or confrontation with co-accused. An order lacking in such specific details was liable to be characterised as non-speaking, mechanical, and illegal.
Justice Tukaramji highlighted that a legally sustainable remand order must reflect (i) physical production of the accused (except in exceptional circumstances); (ii) the magistrate's perusal of the case diary and remand application to assess the necessity of remand; (iii) recording of specific reasons justifying the need for custody, whether police or judicial; and (iv) ideally, the accused 's signature shall be taken on the remand order, evidencing production before the court. The order should unambiguously indicate that the magistrate considered all relevant materials and applied judicial mind to the facts before authorizing detention.
The court said that magistrates must assess whether or not the remand report was practically correct, instead of the grounds for remand submitted by the police — which are mostly about the likelihood of the accused resuming illegal activities if released; apprehension that evidence may be tampered with; possibility of threats, inducements, or coercion of witnesses.
SC defers hearing of Prabhakar’s plea
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court deferred hearing in the pre-arrest bail petition filed by phone-tapping prime accused T. Prabhakar Rao while extending till August 25, its earlier orders restraining the special investigation team (SIT) probing the case from arresting him.
Meanwhile, the SIT filed a petition to quash the orders to not arrest Prabhakar Rao, alleging that he was not cooperating with the investigation. Prabhakar Rao, SIB chief during the BRS government, requested the court to grant anticipatory bail as the police were harassing him. He listed the number of times the SIT had called him and the length of time he was made to sit with the probe team. He submitted that the SIT intended to arrest him, that that was the reason for its allegation that he was not cooperating.
The Supreme Court directed the SIT to file a status report. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the state, informed the court that the investigation was ongoing and requested time to file the report.
HC cautions cops against any role in Nagaram row
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday cautioned the police not to become involved in the Nagaram land issue, else the court would direct the disciplinary committee to suspend them.
Justice K. Lakshman of the High Court was dealing with a petition filed by Vadatya Ramulu, who sought the setting up of an inquiry commission to probe the alleged fraudulent transactions in Survey No. 194 of Nagaram, which was in the prohibitory list but transactions allowed later following which some IAS and IPS officer purchased properties there.
The High Court had summoned Venkatesh, a Maheshwaram constable, on the complaint of Ramulu that the police were threatening him over the phone to withdraw his petition. Venkatesh, who had called the petitioner over the phone, appeared in the court along Mahesharam station house officer (SHO).
When the court questioned him about the phone calls, the constable replied that he had done so on the instructions of the SHO and sector sub-inspector for the purpose of recording village data. The court asked the SHO under what provisions were the police recording village data. The police said they were seeking information regarding the petitioner’s address in relation to his earlier complaint. The court then cautioned the police to be careful.
