The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that obtaining transit remand from a Magistrate in the place of arrest is not mandatory where a person arrested outside the jurisdiction is produced directly before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey.

While dismissing a habeas corpus petition challenging the remand of a man arrested in Karnataka and brought to Andhra Pradesh, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar held that the expression “nearest Magistrate” under Article 22(2) of the Constitution must be understood with reference to time and not merely physical distance.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey, and prohibits further detention without the authority of a Magistrate.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the wife of the detenue, challenging his arrest, transportation from Karnataka to Andhra Pradesh and subsequent remand in a criminal case registered by Andhra Pradesh Police.

She contended that the police had violated constitutional safeguards by taking him to Andhra Pradesh without first obtaining transit remand from a Magistrate in Karnataka.

The Court observed:

“We are of the view that the expression “nearest Magistrate‟ in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India is not necessarily related to the “distance‟ from the place of arrest to the place of jurisdictional Magistrate or non jurisdictional Magistrate but the expression “nearest‟ refers to, in terms of the time taken for production of the person arrested before the jurisdictional Magistrate i.e 24 hours of arrest. The “nearest Magistrate‟ is referable to “time‟ and not the “distance‟. In our view even if in respect of the “distance‟ there is the nearest Magistrate (non jurisdictional) compared to the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is at far distance, but if the person arrested, the police is able to produce within 24 hours before the jurisdictional Magistrate and so produces such person before the jurisdictional Magistrate, there shall be no violation of the fundamental rights of the arrested person neither under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India nor under the provisions of the BNSS.

Thus, considered, we conclude that the order of remand by the jurisdictional Magistrate is valid. It is not invalid on the ground of challenge that the transit remand was not taken from the nearest non-jurisdictional Magistrate, after arrest, for production before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The detenu was produced within 24 hours of his arrest before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and was granted remand. It is not mandatory to obtain transit remand to produce the arrested person before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for remand. If the transit remand is not taken but still the arrested person is produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, excluding the journey time, there would be no violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The detenu is, in detention pursuant to the remand order, which is valid and his detention is not an illegal detention”.

The case arose from a long-standing property dispute between the detenue and another individual in Karnataka, which had led to civil litigation and multiple criminal cases.

Against this backdrop, Andhra Pradesh Police registered a separate criminal case in Andhra Pradesh, alleging offences linked to the existing property dispute. Although the detenue was neither physically present at the place of occurrence nor was any overt act attributed to him in the FIR, he was implicated as an accused on the allegation of conspiracy.

In connection with this case, Andhra Pradesh Police apprehended the detenue in Karnataka and brought him to Andhra Pradesh without obtaining transit remand from a Magistrate in Karnataka. He was produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case in Andhra Pradesh within 24 hours of his arrest and remanded to judicial custody.

Thereafter, the detenue's wife approached the High Court, arguing that the police were required to produce him before the nearest Magistrate in Karnataka before transporting him to Andhra Pradesh. A separate complaint alleging illegal apprehension and assault had also been lodged with Karnataka Police.

Opposing the petition, the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the detenue had been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period. It argued that transit remand was not mandatory in these circumstances and that neither Article 22(2) nor the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, had been violated.

Considering these submissions, the Court explained that geographical conditions, transport facilities and road connectivity may mean that a court located farther away can be reached sooner than a nearer Magistrate who does not have jurisdiction over the case.

It held that failure to obtain transit remand does not, by itself, violate Article 22(2) or the relevant provisions of the BNSS if the arrested person is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the necessary journey time.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had confined her challenge during the hearing to the failure to obtain transit remand. No separate argument was pressed regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest. The Court recorded that the remand report containing those grounds had been served on the detenue and his family before the remand order was passed.

Finding the remand order valid and the detenue's continued detention lawful, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri J. Krishna Praneet, Assistant Government Pleader