Disposed¶34

Lasetti Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2025WP/5382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition (W.P. No. 53820 of 2025, decided 21.02.2025, B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.) on threatened arrest without Section 35(3) BNSS procedure and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) guidelines; Crime No. 5 of 2025 dated 11.01.2025, Kadam P.S., Nirmal District; offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS 2023, with proposed inclusion of Section 117(3) BNS (grievous injury, up to 10 years); disposed with direction to SHO/IO not to interfere with petitioner's life and liberty without due process; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2/IO directed not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner without following due process of law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

Lasetti Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 - the Station House Officer, Kadam Police Station - can arrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 5 of 2025, whose offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, without following the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

¶26

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/IO not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner without following due process of law.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy), W.P. No. 53820 of 2025, disposed on 21.02.2025. Petitioner Lasetti Ramesh sought a writ of mandamus against respondent No.2, the Station House Officer, Kadam P.S., alleging a high-handed attempt to arrest him in connection with Crime No. 5 of 2025 dated 11.01.2025, registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, without following the procedure under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and in violation of Articles 14 and 21. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the offences carry imprisonment of less than seven years. The Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that, per the report of the Doctor who treated the victim (Mr. L. Shekar), he suffered grievous injury, and steps were being taken to alter the section of law by including Section 117(3) BNS, punishable up to ten years. The Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.2/IO not to interfere with the petitioner's personal life and liberty without following due process of law; there was no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDOY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:53820F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

La.setti Ramesh, S/o.Bhumanna, Age. 39 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rt/o. H.No.3-91, Maddipadaga Village, Kaddam Mandal, frtirmat OistiiCt.-^{- -'}

¶9

...PET|TIONER AND

¶10

t l!9 SJatg of Telangana, Bep,, by its principat Secretary, Home Department,

¶11

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Station House-O-ffic-er, Kadam p.S., Kadam, Nirmal District. 3. Rakesh.Las.hetty, S/o..Sheka1 Age 21 yearc, Occ. StuOeni, nyo. H.No.3-9, Kotha Maddipadaga Village, Kaddam M-andal, Nirmal District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an orders, or issue any directions or issue any appropriate writ more particularly in the nature wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in trying to arrest the petitioner highhandedly in relation to cr. No. 5 of 2025 dated 11.o1 .2025 registered on the file of the station House officer, Kadam P.S., Kadam, Nirmal District without following the procedure contemplated under Section 35 (3) of BNSS and in contrary to guidelines issued by the Hon,ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar vs. state of Bihar as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia, consequenfly direct the respondent No. 2 to follow the procedure contemplated under section 35 (3) of BNSS in relation to above crime registered against the petitioner.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct

¶17

the respondent No. 2 to strictly follow the^procedure contemplated under^Section 35 (3) of BNSS and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar in relation to crime vide Cr. No. 5 of 2O25 dated 11.01 .2025 registered against^petitioner on the file of the Station House Officer, Kadam P.S., Kadam, Nirmal District,^pending disposal of main Writ Petition in the interest of Justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: --

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

HONOURABLE^{SRI}USTICEB. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶22

WRITPETITION^{No.s3820F202s}

¶23

ORDER:^(oRAL)

¶24

This writ petition^{is filed seekingto declarethe action of} respondent^{No.2 - the Station House Officer'KadamPolice Station' in} trying to^{arrest the petitionerin connectionwith Crime No'5 of 2025} dated 1 l.Ol^{.2025 registeredwithKadam Police Station for the offences} punishable^{under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya} Nyaya Sanhita,^{2023 (BNS), without following the procedure} contemplated^{under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha} Sanhita, 2023^{(BNSS)and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble} Supreme^{Court in ArneshKumar v. State of Biharr,as being illegal'} arbitrary and^{violative of Articles14 and 21 of the Constitution of} India.

¶25

I I

¶26

Leamed counsel^{for the petitioner submitted that the offences} mentioned in^{CrimeNo.5 of 2025are punishablewith term less than} seven (7)^{years imprisonment'Despite the same' respondent} No.2/Investigating^{Officer (lO) is tryingto arrestthe petitioner'}

'^{(2014)8 SCC 273}