Transit Remand Not Mandatory if Accused Produced Within 24 Hours

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decided Sabena Prakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2026). The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It held that not getting a transit remand does not, by itself, violate Article 22(2) of the Constitution if the arrested person is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours.

What was the Background of Sabena Prakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2026) Case? 

• The case came out of a long-running property dispute in Karnataka between the detenue and another person, which had led to civil litigation and several criminal cases. 
• Against this background, the Andhra Pradesh Police registered a separate criminal case in Andhra Pradesh over offences connected to the same property dispute. 
• The detenue was named as an accused on a conspiracy allegation, although:  
  • he was not physically present at the place of occurrence, and 
  • the FIR did not attribute any overt act to him. 
• The Andhra Pradesh Police arrested him in Karnataka and took him to Andhra Pradesh without getting a transit remand from a Magistrate in Karnataka. 
• Within 24 hours of the arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate in Andhra Pradesh who had jurisdiction over the case, and was remanded to judicial custody. 
• His wife (the petitioner) filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court. She argued that the police should have produced him before the nearest Magistrate in Karnataka before taking him to Andhra Pradesh. 
• A separate complaint of illegal apprehension and assault had also been filed with the Karnataka Police. 
• The State of Andhra Pradesh argued that:  
  • the detenue was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time the Constitution prescribes, 
  • transit remand was not mandatory in these circumstances, and 
  • neither Article 22(2) nor the BNSS had been violated. 

Question before the High Court: 

• Is a remand order invalid, and the detention illegal, if the police do not get a transit remand from the nearest non-jurisdictional Magistrate after arresting a person outside the jurisdiction, but produce the person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the expression “nearest Magistrate” in Article 22(2): 

• The Court held that “nearest Magistrate” does not necessarily refer to the distance from the place of arrest to a jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional Magistrate. 
• “Nearest” refers to time: whether the arrested person can be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. 
• A non-jurisdictional Magistrate may be physically closer than the jurisdictional Magistrate. Even so, if the police produce the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, there is no violation of fundamental rights. 

On practical conditions: 

• The Court explained that geography, transport facilities and road connectivity can mean a court that is farther away is reachable sooner than a nearer Magistrate who has no jurisdiction over the case. 

On transit remand: 

• The Court held that getting a transit remand is not mandatory for producing the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand. 
• Not getting a transit remand does not, by itself, violate Article 22(2) or the relevant BNSS provisions, as long as the arrested person is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the necessary journey time. 

On the grounds of arrest: 

• The Court noted that, during the hearing, the petitioner confined her challenge to the failure to get a transit remand. She did not separately argue that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated. 
• The Court recorded that the remand report containing the grounds of arrest had been served on the detenue and his family before the remand order was passed. 

Decision: 

• The remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate was held valid. 
• The detenue’s continued detention under that order was held lawful and not an illegal detention. 
• The writ petition was dismissed.

What are Article 22(2) of the Constitution and the Related BNSS Provisions? 

About: 

• Article 22 of the Constitution protects persons against arbitrary arrest and detention. Along with Article 21, it forms the core of procedural safeguards for arrested persons. 
• A person who claims to be illegally detained can seek a writ of habeas corpus from a High Court under Article 226 or from the Supreme Court under Article 32. 

Article 22(1): 

• An arrested person must be told the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. 
• The arrested person has the right to consult, and be defended by, a legal practitioner of their choice. 

Article 22(2): 

• Every arrested and detained person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. 
• The time needed for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court is excluded from the 24 hours. 
• No such person can be detained beyond that period without the authority of a Magistrate. 

Section 58 BNSS (earlier Section 57 CrPC) – Person Arrested Not to Be Detained More than 24 Hours: 

• A police officer cannot detain a person arrested without a warrant for longer than is reasonable in the circumstances. 
• That period cannot exceed 24 hours, excluding the time needed for the journey to the Magistrate’s court, unless the Magistrate orders otherwise. 

Section 187 BNSS (earlier Section 167 CrPC) – Procedure when Investigation Cannot Be Completed in 24 Hours: 

• If the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the arrested person must be forwarded to the nearest Judicial Magistrate. 
• The Magistrate may authorise the person’s detention, whether or not they have jurisdiction to try the case. 
• A Magistrate without jurisdiction may authorise detention only for a limited period and must then send the accused to a Magistrate who has jurisdiction. In practice, this limited order is called a transit remand.