APHC010142512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7257/2025 Between: K. Divya Vani, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner has approached this Court, with a complaint that her husband has been illegally detained by the respondents 4 & 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, her husband was arrested, on 16.03.2025, in Crime No.104 of 2025 registered with the 4th respondent, for alleged offences under Sections 196 (1), 352, 353 (1), 353 (2), 61(2) (a) of B.N.S. read with 66 & Section 43 of of the Information Technology Act. A contention is raised that the said arrest is 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.7257 of 2025 in violation of the provisions under the B.N.S.S. Act and more specifically in violation of Sections 47 & 48 of B.N.S.S. Act, which mandates that intimation and grounds of arrest are to be given to the arrested persons as well as the near relative. 2. Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the arrest and subsequent remand order passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati remanding the detenue to judicial custody suffers from various infirmities. 3. He would also contend that the learned Magistrate had passed a remand order, dated 17.03.2025, without looking into the allegations against the detenue and the provisions of law, which have been laid against the detenue. He would submit that none of these offences require arrest and no specific grounds and reasons of arrest have been made out for arresting the detenue. He would further submit that, he has been instructed that notices under Sections 47 & 48 of B.N.S.S. were not served prior to the arrest and that, grounds and reasons of arrest have not been served on either the detenue nor on any family member of the detenue. 4. The learned Government Pleader, has produced documents showing that notices, said to be notices under Sections 47 & 48 of B.N.S.S. had been served on the detenue as well as on the petitioner, who is his wife. 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.7257 of 2025 5. In view of the settled law that this Court, cannot intervene in a Writ of Habeas Corpus, once there is a remand order passed by the Competent Magistrate, unless there is a non-application of mind in passing such remand order, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the rival submissions. 6. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum for redress. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date:26.03.2025 KPV 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.7257 of 2025 63 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No:7257 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 26.03.2025 KPV