Partly allowed

Poduri Ranjith v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022CRLP/223/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court closed a bail petition against a customer accused of prostitution offenses. The court observed that the Magistrate failed to exercise judicial scrutiny under Arnesh Kumar guidelines for the customer accused, rejecting stereotypical arrest reasons, but upheld the remand due to general case severity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition closed. Investigation Officer cautioned; no departmental action contemplated regarding Magistrate.

Poduri Ranjith Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶5

CRIMIN PETITION NO: 22 oF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Poduri Ranjith, S/o Sri Ramulu^{Aged about. 38} .years, .^OccHomeGuard nyo. O. No.l SiZ,noad No.s^{Brudhavan-Colony, Hayat Nagar Ranga Reddy District'} Niiive of Narsimna^{PuramColony,Mothe Village and MandalSuryapet Dist'Telangana}

¶8

...PETITIONEFYACCUSED^No.4

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{rep.by its Public Prosecutor HighCourt, Hyderabad}

¶11

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition under Section 437^and 439^{of Cr.P-C praying that in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{Memorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the High} court may be^pleased to^{grant Petitioner/Accused No.4 bail in crime No.973 2021 on} the file of Station House^{Office Police Station. Hayat Nagar RangaReddydistrict'}

¶13

This Petition coming on for^{hearing,uponperusing theMemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearingtheargumentsof Sri V' R'} MACHAVARAM ,Advocate^{for the Petitionerand the PublicProsecutor on behalf of} the Respondent.

¶14

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶15

TI{E, IION'BI-E SM'T. .IIJS'I'ICE LAI,I'I}IA KANNEGANTI

¶16

CRIMINAI- PETI-I'ION NO.223 OI,- 2 022

¶17

ORDER:-

¶18

This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 4i9 olCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fbr shorr "Cr.P.C") seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A.4 in connection with crime No.973 of 2021 of Hayathnagar police Station, Rachakonda commissionerate, wherein the petitioner and other accused are alleged to have comrnirted rhe of'lences punishable r,rnder Section 370(4)(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shorr'lpC'), and Secrions 3,4 and 5 of the Prevention of Imrnoral Tral'fic Act. 1956.

¶19

fhe case of prosecution in nutshell is that A.1 was running brothel house by procuring innocent females for prostitution and he was informed the same to 4.2 to A.4 to come to UTF Colony, Laxmareddy palem, and shown the victim to A.2 to A.4. After seeing the victim, they agreed for participation of sex with the victim and paid the arnounts. while petitioner participating in sexual course with the victirn, LW. l-Detective lnspector of police had apprehended the accused persons and took them into custody and seized net cash of Rs.2,000/-, phones of A. I to A.3 and other materials. Basing on the said report, the present crime is registered.

¶20

Crl P No 2l] ol

¶21

¶22

l-his Court, by order dated 19.01 .2022, has grantcd bail to the petitioner. While granting bail, this Coun directed Investigating Officer as well as XXIV Additionat Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad al Hayathnagar, to submit a report before this Court within one week why Section 4l-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharr are not followed, when the punishment for the alleged offences is below seven years, when the police failed to give propcr reasons for the arrest of the accused and on what basis the accused was remanded.

¶23

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, a report of the learned XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayathnagar, has been placed before this Court stating that accused Nos. I to 4 were produced before the Court on 20.12.2021 and the counsel represented that the concerned police not complied with Section 41-A Cr.P.C., hence, accused cannot be remanded. lt is stated in the report, which reads thus:

¶24

"l have gone through and perused the entire material on the record. I most humbly submit that before remanding the accused No. I to 4, keeping in rny mind the judgment of the t{on'ble Apex Court Arnesh Kurnar Vs. State of Bihar(2014 8 SCC 273) and the guidclines laid down therein. I clearly perused the available entirc rccord, the record shown that thc concerned investigation officer

¶25

' lzor+;^{a scc zz:}

¶26

L(,^J Crl l) No 221 ot 2022

¶27

¶28

not issued noticc U/Sec.4 l -A Cr.p.C. to thc accused pcrsons however investigation olficcr along with thc rcrnarrd case diary. he f'urnished the check list U/s 4l-l(b) Cr.p.C. as per thc.judgnrcnt in Arnesh Kurnar Vs. State of Bihar (2014 S SCC 273) by rncnrioning the reasons in clause No. I to 5. (enclosed thc check tist lbr kind of perusal) for rnaking arrest of accused persons without scrving the said notice. The invcstigating officer further mentioned that he has satisfied with the reasons mentioned in clause No. I to 5 basing on which he came to the conclusion that the arrest ol thc accuscd is necessary. As the reasons mentioncd are lound to be satislactory and found in accordance with thc guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I rcmanded thc accused persons and sent them to judicial custody.

¶29

I mostly hurnbly subrnit that I have cxercised my discretionarv power to authorize detention as a very solemn function. Before the remand I am firstly satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and the constitutional rights of the person arrested are satisfied. I befi>re authorizing detention, recorded my own satisFaction in briel salne is reflecting yin the remand order Dt.20.12.2021. I lence, I further hurnbly submit that I have followed the procedure conternplated U/s.4 I _A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines ol judgment in Arnesh K umar Vs. State of Bihar. Hence, I pray the l{on'blc High Court that this report rnay be considered and accepted."

¶30

5' A counter affidavit has been filed by the Investigating officer-rnspector

¶31

of Police, Hayathnagar police Station, Rachakonda cornmissionerate, stating that the nature of offence is flesh trade, where the victirns are being trafficked

¶32

Crl P No 221 ot-

¶33

¶34

and sexually exploited. Moreover, thc sex trafficking is serious crime and volition of human righrs, where the victim in the above case is imported from other State and a crime as is understood creates a dent in law and order situation. In a civilized society, crime disturbs orderliness, it affects the peaceful life of the society and moreover to curb the menace under Section 370(4) was also brought in t. existence, further the accused was caught redhanded and as such his arrest was necessary in order to prevent him from absconding and arso inducing or thrcatening the victims and secure his presence in the Court. It is further stated that the power of arrest available to a police officer in connection with commission of a cognizable offence has been conferred vide Section ar(1)(a) when the cognizabre offence is committed in his presence. It is also stated in the counter_affidavit that in respect of offences under Immoral rraffic (prevention) Act, 1956 and other cognate offences in the Indian penal code, the investigating agency shall not mechanically resort to Section 4l-A of cr.p.c. without applying its mind to the parameters laid down in Section 4l(lxii) of the code. while arriving, ar such decision the investigating agency must bear in mind that these cases involve grave offences having widespread social ramifications and ordinariry aflect the economically weak victims who are vulnerabre to threats and/or inducement of various kinds. possibirity to repelition of such organized crimes are most likely ir the of|enders are not apprehended. It is further

¶35

LK. I (rl l) No 22.1 o12022

¶36

¶37

stated that in the order passed by this court dated 19.01 .2oz2this courr has observed that officer has not filed checklist under Secrion 4l( I xb) of cr.p.c, for that a check list was prepared at the time of remand by assigning reasons and the same was also furnished to the court. Hence, it is stated that the criminal petition may be dismissed.

¶38

when this court has called for report from the learned Magistrate and counter from the Investigating officer, this court has specifically asked them why Section 4l -A cr.P.c. has not been follou,ed and the guiderines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case and also why the checklist is not furnished along with the charge sheet. This court is not able to appreciate the report filed by the leamed Magistrate as well as counter affidavit filed by the officer. In Arnesh Kumar's case, the Hon,ble Supreme court clearly observed that police officers shail not arrest the accused unnecessarily. It is also observed that the reasons for arrest of accused cannot be stereotypic and cyclostyle reasons, but it should be genuine and germane for consideration.

¶39

In this case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 370(A)(2) IpC and Sections 3,4 and 5 ofthc plTA Act. The petitioner is not running the Brothel Ilouse but hc is a customer.^'l-hc punishrncnt for the olfence under Section 370(AX2) IPC is rigorous

¶40

Crl P No.22l of.

¶41

¶42

imprisonment for a term which shalr not be ress than three years, but which may extent to five years and shail arso be liabre to pay fine. The reasons for arrest mentioned in the checklist of the petitioner are that (r) if the accused was not amested he may continue his iilegal activities (2) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner (3) in order to prevent the accused from making any inducement or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case. So as to disuse him from disclosing to the court or to the police officer. (4) If they were released on bair, it is very difficurty ro produce them before the Hon'ble Court at the time of trial (5) As the accused A-l is habitual one and^just (8) months back only he was arresred by police, Vanasthalipuram but he did not change his attitude and the A-l is doing/earnings money by lured the innocent woman by the way of prostitution.

¶43

In the remand application, the leamed Magistrate has observed that "section 4l-A cr-P.C. not complied by the police as reported by counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3. But, the check list filed, on perusal of the record, the concerned I.O. mentioned sufficient reasons u/Sec.4l(l)(b) Cr.p.C. why the arrest of accused persons are necessary. This Court satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the Investigation Olficer according to Section 4l(l) Cr.P.C.^"

¶44

LK.l (il I'No 2ll ofl022

¶45

¶46

The learned Magistrate states in the reporl that she has exercised her discretionary power to authorize detention as a very solemn function and she has followed the guidelines issued by the Hon'bre Supremc courr in Arnesh Kumar's case and for the reasons stated in the checklist, she is satisfied with the reasons given by the police officer. The learned Magistrate failed to understand the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar's case. In the checklist, it is stated that accused No.l is a habitual offender and nothing has been stated against the petitioner/A.4, who is a customer. The Hon'ble Suprerne court in Arnesh Kumar's case observed that "the power to authorise detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167 cr.p.c. he has ro be first satisfied thar the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfu the requirements of Section 4l of the code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. rn other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, J reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be

¶47

Crl l'No lli o,

¶48

¶49

satisfied that condition precedent lor arrest under Section 41 Cr.pC has been satisfled and it is only thereaftcr thar he will authorise the detention of an accused. fhe Magistrate belore authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in briel but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police offtcer, tbr example, in case the police officer considers the affest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducernent etc., the police oflicer shall lurnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis ol which the police officer had reached its conclusion. l-hose shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused. In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced belore a Magistrate fbr authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima lacie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this lirnited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny."

¶50

LR, I Crl l, No 221 of2022

¶51

¶52

(

¶53

I 0. It appears that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise the discretion judicially. The leamed Magistrate ought to have bee, more cautious while remanding the accused and she ought not to have taken into consideration the stereotypic reasons. It is not mere saying that "r have exercised the discretionary power in authorizing detention as a very solemn function,,, but, the learned Judge should have also implemented the same in its true spirit. If the remands are made solely basing on the reasons stated by the police, then the duty of the Judge is a mere ritual. The leamed Judge is supposed to make a judicial scrutiny whether specific reasons have recorded for arrest, such reasons are relevant and the police officer has reached at a reasonable conclusion that the stated reasons are attracted. In this case, the leamed Judge failed to make the judiciat scrutiny as required and authorised the detention. Hereafter, the learned Judge shall be careful in implementing the guidelines issued by the Apex court in Amesh Kumar's case and shall follow it scrupulously. Taking a Ienient view, this court is not referring the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble chief Justice for taking action on departmental side. As far as the Investigating officer is concemed, all the reasons that are stated in the counter-affidavit, at best, may be applicable to accused No. t, but not to accused No.4 but still he was remanded. Cautioning him, no departmental action is contemplated by this court or the suo moto contempt proceedings.

¶54

Crl P No 221 or

¶55

¶56

ll lhe criminal petition is, accordingly, closed. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate the copy ol the order to rhe learned XXIV

¶57

Additional Metropolitan Magistr.ate, Cyberabad at l{ayathnagar, as well as to the Investigating Offi cer.

¶58

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shallstand closed.

¶59

¶60

ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI (FOR HER LOROSHIPS KIND PERUSAL)