Hyderabad:A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji declared that for the purpose of producing a detainee before a magistrate, the period of detention begins the moment a person is apprehended by the police. From that very moment, the individual’s personal liberty is restrained, and their movements are arrested, as they remain under the control of the police. The panel, speaking through Justice Sam Koshy, emphasised that the period of apprehension must also be taken into account when calculating the 24-hour period mandated. In other words, the 24-hour period is not to be calculated from the time the police officially record the arrest in the arrest memo, but from the moment the individual is initially apprehended or taken into custody. The court was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by T. Ramadevi, challenging the arrest of her husband Srinivas Goud, along with Sai Sharat, Sai Rohit, and a neighbour, P. Shiva Charan, who were subsequently lodged in Chanchalguda Jail. The court found that the individuals were arrested under the Telangana Protection of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (TSPDFE Act). The detainees were accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act. The panel observed that two of the detainees, Sai Sharat and Srinivas Goud, were detained for 38 hours before being produced before a magistrate. Therefore, the habeas corpus petitions were allowed. The petitioners had also contended that, under the TSPDFE Act, only the special court notified under the Act had jurisdiction, and hence, even the initial remand proceedings should have been conducted before that special court, not before any other magistrate. The court did not accept this argument. The state argued that under the TSPDFE Act, for the purpose of the first remand, it was permissible to produce the detainees before the nearest judicial magistrate, and not necessarily only before the notified special court. Agreeing with this view, Justice Sam Koshy noted that Section 13 of the TSPDFE Act specifically stated that the special court may take cognisance of the offence even without the case being committed to it. This, however, does not imply that the first remand under Section 167(1) of the CrPC must be before the special court alone. Reading Section 167 of the CrPC together with Sections 13 and 14 of the TSPDFE Act, the court concluded that the word “may” used in sub-section (1) of Section 13 granted discretionary power, not a mandatory direction. While dealing with the constitutional provision under Article 22, Justice Sam Koshy observed that even the Constitution of India mandated that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest judicial magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest and detention. The exceptions to this rule, as carved out in law, were not applicable in the present case.Murder convict seeks bail for wife’s surgeryA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Surepalli Nanda and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao directed the authorities to file a ground report in connection with the interim bail plea filed by Routhu Poshetty Magam Poshetty, convicted in a murder case. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence and interim bail, citing the scheduled surgery of his wife. The appeal challenges the judgment passed in August 2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal, which convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court had earlier dismissed an application for suspension of sentence and regular bail. The present interlocutory application was filed seeking interim bail on humanitarian grounds, specifically citing the need to attend to his wife’s surgery. The bench directed the authorities to submit a ground report and adjourned the matter to the next date of hearing.Woman farmer gets Forest Act reliefJustice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the state authorities and forest officials not to dispossess a woman farmer from her agricultural land in Bhadradri Kothagudem district without following due process. The petitioner, Punem Lalitha, filed a writ petition seeking protection from eviction from four acres of agricultural land in Lakshmidevipalli, Paloncha Mandal. She contended that the actions of the authorities to evict her were arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s counsel argued that she previously approached the court in a related matter, and the orders passed in her favour were in force. Despite this, forest officials were threatening to dispossess her without lawful authority. The petitioner contended that she has been cultivating the land and had also constructed a small house on it. The local gram panchayat assigned a house number and she was paying house tax regularly. On the other hand, the government pleader argued that the petitioner was liable to be evicted and such eviction would be carried out under the provisions of the Forest Act, 1967, following the due process of law. Taking both submissions into account, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to act strictly in accordance with legal procedure. The Court also observed that if the petitioner was found to be an encroacher on forest land, the authorities were at liberty to initiate appropriate action under the Forest Act.
Source link
