Telangana HC orders action against magistrate, cop over improper judicial custody
HYDERABAD: Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court has directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to take action against the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, for sending an accused to judicial custody without examining the case diary or ensuring compliance with established legal procedures as per Section 35(1) of BNSS (formerly Section 41A of CrPC).
Justice Lakshman instructed the Karimnagar SP to act against the officer investigating Crime No. 339/2024 at Kothapalli police station for failing to follow procedural safeguards.
The judge also ordered the Karimnagar district prison superintendent to release Yasa Akhilesh Reddy on personal bond of Rs 25,000. The accused was directed to cooperate with the investigation and deposit his passport with the magistrate. He was also barred from leaving the country.
In his plea, the petitioner challenged his son’s judicial custody, arguing that he was booked under Sections 308, 351(1), 351(2), and 351(4) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, based on a complaint by Choppadandi MLA Medipally Satya.
The complaint, lodged on September 29, 2024, alleged that the MLA received threatening calls on WhatsApp from an unknown number between 28 and 29 September 2024. The caller allegedly attempted to blackmail him over personal issues, demanding Rs 20 lakh and threatening defamation on social media.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint lacked key details linking the accused, such as his name or caste. Despite this, the Investigating Officer determined the caste of both the complainant and the accused by obtaining caste certificates. Counsel noted that the accused was already booked under Crime No. 6605/2024 by Cyberabad Police for similar allegations under Section 351(1) of BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2008. The Cyberabad police arrested the accused at Bengaluru airport upon his arrival from the UK but later released him.
However, the Kothapalli police detained him again and produced him before the Karimnagar Magistrate, who ordered his judicial custody.
The petitioner contended that since the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is below seven years, the IO was required to follow Section 35 of BNSS. The Magistrate’s approval of judicial custody without verifying procedural compliance was found improper.
The Public Prosecutor argued that the petition was not maintainable under Section 528 of BNSS as it was filed by the father of the accused without proper authorisation.
The prosecution asserted that there was no procedural violation and stated that the accused made threatening calls to the MLA, who represents a reserved SC constituency. The Prosecutor defended the police’s right to investigate the MLA’s caste in the context of the SC/ST Act charges.