Bandi Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Telangana

Heard Mr. N.Ramchandra Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1

â€" State of Telangana. None has appeared for respondent No.2.

2 On 05.01.2022, the following order was passed:

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of remand order dated 03.01.2022, passed by the

learned Principal Junior Civil Judge â€" cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, in Crime No.2 of 2022 registered by Karimnagar II Town

Police Station under Sections 143, 188, 341, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 149 of the said code, Section 51(B)

of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

As per the remand report dated 03.01.2022, petitioner was apprehended on 02.01.2022 at about 22:15 hours on the basis of a complaint lodged by Mr.

V.Srinivas, Inspector of Police, Huzurabad.

Petition discloses that petitioner is the State President of a national political party (Bharatiya Janata Party) and is also a Member of Parliament. It

appears that petitioner had called for protest demonstration against Government Order No.317 issued by the State Government.

According to the first information, petitioner proposed to conduct a deeksha along with his party workers at Chaitanyapuri, Karimnagar, demanding

cancellation of the said Government Order. Tents and platforms were set up for holding the deeksha. Police informed the organizers that such

demonstration would be in violation of orders of the State Government prohibiting assembly of large gathering in view of the COVID -19 situation.

However, ignoring such request of the police, petitioner decided to conduct the deeksha with his followers.

It is alleged that when the police tried to disperse the gathering, they were attacked causing injuries.

Initially, the case was registered under Sections 147, 188, 341 and 332 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 51(B) of the Disaster Management

Act, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Subsequently, on a Memo of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Karimnagar, Section 333 IPC was added on the ground that LW.3 had stated before him that he had sustained fracture of his right hand finger during

the attack.

From a perusal of the remand report, we find that the first information was lodged on 02.01.2022 at 23:15 hours. But, L.W.11 i.e., the Investigating

Officer along with other police personnel had entered into the party office and apprehended the accused persons including the petitioner at about 22:15

hours on 02.01.2022 prior to lodging of the first information.

Though in the remand report reference was made to the statement of LW.3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he had sustained fracture of his right

hand finger, the medical certificate was awaited. Even in the absence of the medical certificate, prayer was made for addition of Section 333 IPC to

Crime No.2 of 2022, which appears to have been granted by the learned Magistrate immediately.

This brings us to the docket order dated 03.01.2022, passed by the learned Magistrate, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“Perused F.I.R, remand report and Section addition Memo. Primafacie satisfied that a case is made out against A1, A3, A8, A11 and A13, for

offence U/Sec. 143, 188, 341, 332 and 333 r/w 149 IPC., Sec. 51(b) DM Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act. Hence A1, A3, A8, A11 and A13 are

remanded to Judicial Custody, until 17.01.2022.â€​

Learned Magistrate remanded the petitioner and the other accused to judicial custody till 17.01.2022 on the request of the police for judicial custody of

fifteen days i.e., till 17.01.2022.

From a perusal of the remand report, what is discernible is that petitioner was leading a political demonstration, which is not at all unnatural in a

democracy. Political dissent and demonstrations are the essence of a thriving democracy. No attempt should be made by those in power and authority

to outlaw legitimate protest. Ofcourse, going by the version of the prosecution, the demonstrators resisted the attempt by the police to disperse them,

which may have caused injuries to some of the police persons.

But the moot question is whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to the prayer for remand or mechanically granted such prayer as sought

for.

In Manubhai Ratilal Patel vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2013 SC 313 this is what the Supreme Court had to say on remand:

“The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering

the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials

placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend

his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the

Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so

that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial

remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand

automatically or in a mechanical manner.â€​

Prima facie we do not find the learned Magistrate applying his judicial mind while remanding the petitioner to judicial custody till 17.01.2022. In fact,

there does not appear to be any application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate as to the requirement for custody of the petitioner and, if so,

for what duration police asked for 15 days custody and that was promptly granted.

Issue notice.

Since learned Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent/State of Telangana, requirement of formal notice stands obviated.

In view of the above, impugned docket order dated 03.01.2022 qua the petitioner is, hereby, stayed. Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith on

furnishing personal bond.

However, petitioner must ensure that all COVID norms are followed while carrying out his political activities.

3 Today learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid order, the matter has become infructuous. Learned Public

Prosecutor accepts the position.

4 In view of above, the present Criminal Petition is disposed of as infructuous.

5 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall also stand closed.