In a significant ruling on inter-state arrest procedures, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar has held that obtaining a transit remand is not mandatory when the police are able to produce an arrested person directly before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time. The Bench clarified that the expression “nearest Magistrate” under Article 22(2) of the Constitution is referable to the time taken for production rather than mere physical distance. Consequently, the High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrest and subsequent remand of an accused apprehended in Bengaluru and produced before a jurisdictional Magistrate in Andhra Pradesh without an intervening transit remand.
Background of the Case
The petition was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sabena Prakash seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the production and release of her husband, Dr. Ravi Prakash. She also sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the remand order dated August 31, 2026, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District, in Crime No. 229 of 2026 registered by Mydukur Police Station.
According to the petitioner, her husband and Dr. Putta Ravi Kumar had been embroiled in protracted civil litigation regarding immovable property situated in Bengaluru. The disputes had spawned several criminal cases between the parties in Karnataka. Subsequently, Crime No. 229 of 2026 was registered at Mydukur Police Station in Andhra Pradesh on July 22, 2026, against accused persons Nos. 1 to 4, with motive attributed to the Bengaluru property dispute. Dr. Ravi Prakash was implicated as Accused No. 5 on allegations of criminal conspiracy.
On August 30, 2026, Andhra Pradesh Police apprehended Dr. Ravi Prakash in Bengaluru and brought him to Andhra Pradesh. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Mydukur on August 31, 2026, within 24 hours of arrest, and was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner challenged the arrest and transfer, contending that the police violated constitutional and statutory mandates by failing to produce him before the nearest local Magistrate in Bengaluru to obtain a transit remand prior to interstate conveyance.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, argued that the failure to secure a transit remand from the nearest Magistrate in Bengaluru violated Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, as well as provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner contended that in the absence of a transit remand, the jurisdictional Magistrate’s remand order was without jurisdiction and void, rendering continued custody unconstitutional. The petitioner placed primary reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, alongside decisions in Muhammed Ashfaq C. v. Union of India, Sandeep Kumar v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), and Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency. Counsel conceded, however, that the grounds of arrest had been served on the detenu and his family prior to the remand order, confirming compliance with Article 22(1).
Opposing the petition, Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that there was no illegality in the remand order. He argued that securing a transit remand is not mandatory if the investigating agency successfully brings and produces the arrestee before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the 24-hour statutory limit. The State maintained that Dr. Ravi Prakash was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, satisfying both Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 45 of the BNSS, 2023. The State placed reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in Sat Prakash Yadav v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the Patna High Court ruling in Uttam Daga @ Uttam Kumar Daga v. Union of India, and the Supreme Court decision in Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court formulated two core questions: whether producing an arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest without a transit remand violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution; and if so, whether the jurisdictional Magistrate’s remand order becomes invalid, warranting a writ of habeas corpus.
Examining Section 45 of the BNSS, 2023, the Bench noted that police officers are empowered to pursue an offender into any place in India to execute an arrest without a warrant. Addressing the phrase “nearest Magistrate” in Article 22(2), the Bench held:
“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’.”
The Bench elaborated:
“When the police is able to produce the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the specified time, and in such a case, the police even if it does not produce the arrested person before the non jurisdictional Magistrate to take the transit remand but produces the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the specified time of 24 hours, there shall in our view, be no violation of the fundamental rights of the arrested person under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.”
“If the person arrested can be produced within 24 hours of arrest before the jurisdictional Magistrate, it would not be necessary for the police to first produce the person arrested before the non-jurisdictional nearest Magistrate to take the transit remand and then to produce before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand. Though the police may be obligated to take the transit remand for the purpose of ensuring that, there may not result violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, in case there is delay in production before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and that may be on the safer side for the police to go for transit remand, but, if the transit remand is not taken and the arrested person is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest then there shall be no violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.”
Distinguishing the petitioner’s citations, the Bench observed that Priya Indoria dealt primarily with the concept of “transit anticipatory bail,” while Muhammed Ashfaq C. involved situations where an accused was produced beyond 24 hours without a transit remand. The Court drew support from Sat Prakash Yadav and Uttam Daga, which affirmed that transit remands are intended to provide sufficient time when travel exceeds 24 hours.
On the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition against a remand order, the Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, reiterating that a writ of habeas corpus does not lie against judicial custody ordered by a competent court unless the order suffers from a complete absence of jurisdiction or patent illegality.
The Decision
Answering both questions in the negative, the High Court held:
“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.”
Finding no illegality in the detention or the remand order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Sabena Prakash v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 26235 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar
Date: 13.10.2026
