Telangana High Court
Pogadadabnda Revathi vs The State Of Telangana, on 13 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13071 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revisional court has passed an erroneous order setting aside the order passed by the trial court. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition filed by the State for seeking police custody of the petitioners and when the State has preferred revision before the Sessions Court, the same was allowed and the police custody of the petitioners herein was granted for three (3) days, which is against the legal principles. He further submitted that the FIR is registered in the month of March and police custody was granted in the month of October i.e. after seven months, which is strictly in violation of law and therefore, prayed to quash the impugned orders. He also submitted that the petitioners were granted bail vide order 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025 subject to the condition that they would appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Monday and Friday and that they have been complying with the said orders till date without any violation and that the revisional court failed to consider the said point. Inspite of the petitioners attending the concerned Police Station twice a week, the present petition is filed seeking custody of the petitioners without there being any ground.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the only specific ground raised for filing the police custody petition by the prosecution is that they would like to seize certain material. His contention is that the police have already seized the material from the petitioners and there is nothing else to seize, hence, the said ground is not tenable and all other grounds on which the police custody is sought are general in nature and hence, they do not deserve any consideration. The revisinoal court has failed to appreciate the same and erred in granting police custody, which is not at all just and proper and therefore, prayed to quash the impugned order.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the FIR is registered on 10.03.2025 while the orders dismissing the petition for police custody was passed by the trial court on 17.03.2025, and 3 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 against the same, the police filed petition for setting aside the order of the trial court on 21.03.2025 within a period of eleven (11) days from the date of registration of FIR and that it is very much within the period specified under the Statute i.e. within a period of forty (40) days. Therefore, he further submitted that the police custody is sought for seizure of other electronic devices apart from the devices which are already seized. He further submitted that compliance of bail conditions cannot be a ground for seeking quash and that though the petitioners are appearing before the police concerned in compliance of the bail conditions, it does not mean to say that the police can interrogate and elicit the truth during the said visits. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are alleged to have committed a serious offence by telecasting objectionable material, intending to provoke differences among different groups of people and that the petition lacks merit and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the same.
6. Perused the record.
7. The petitioners herein are facing offences under Sections 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and 11, 61(2) 353(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The police custody is sought for the reason that the police intend to seize the other material like Mobile Phones, Laptops, Desktops, Hard Disk and other storage devices 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 where the abusive videos recorded against the Chief Minister were stored. It is further mentioned in the grounds that the petitioners herein did not cooperate with the investigating Agency at the time of arrest and did not reveal any information pertaining to the crime and thus, a detailed statement need to be recorded for which the police sought custody of the petitioners and further their involvement in other cases registered against them in the entire State. These are the grounds among the other grounds raised seeking to grant police custody. It is pertinent to refer Section 167 Cr.P.C. equivalent to Section 187 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
8. Section 187 of BNSS is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:
"187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 58, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter specified relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, irrespective of whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration whether 5 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-section (3), and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.
(3) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding-(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter.
(4) No Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the audio-video electronic means.
(5) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in sub-section (3), the accused shall be detained in 6 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.-If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under sub-section (4), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorizing detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the audio-video electronic means, as the case may be:
Provided that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognized social institution:
Provided further that no person shall be detained otherwise than in police station under police custody or in prison under judicial custody or a place declared as prison by the Central Government or the State Government.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) to sub-section (5), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-
inspector, may, where a Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter specified relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in sub-section (3):
Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in
7 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.
(7) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.
(8) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(9) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.
(10) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (9), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (9) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify."
9. Thus, the police custody can be granted within a period of forty (40) days, for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole, in the present case.
10. The police custody petition is filed within 40 days in this case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned revisoinal court. In fact, the said grounds were not examined by the trial court and the trial court has dismissed the petition by 8 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025 observing that incriminating material was already seized and hence, the police custody is not required. The gravity of the allegations is that the objectionable material has been telecast on the news channel pertaining to the petitioners and further the video has been actively circulated and made viral in Twitter profile @NippuKodi.
11. In Kishor v. State of Maharashtra 1, the High Court of Bombay held that:
"The very purpose of WhatsApp status is to convey something to his contacts. It is nothing but a mode of communication with known persons. One puts up the status in order to get a reaction and most of them crave for support. Now-a-days, the people are checking WhatsApp status now and then. One should behave with sense of responsibility while communicating something to others. The applicant cannot shed his primary responsibility by saying about its limited circulation. There is no justification for the applicant to display such kind of status. Contents of FIR prim a facie, discloses applicant's deliberate and malicious intention to insult the feeling of a group."
12. In the case on hand, an objectionable video has been made viral on Twitter. Therefore, the petitioners are facing serious allegations and the purpose for which the custody is sought is to seize the other storage devices wherein the said abusive material is stored. 1 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1515 9 ETD,J Crl.P. No.13071 of 2025
13. The contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the petitioners have every responsibility to edit the material before making any telecast, which is not done in this case. However, the allegations point out that the news item was telecast not only in the news channel, but it was also made viral on Twitter Profile.
14. The limited question that arises for consideration in this case is to see whether the impugned orders suffer from any legal infirmity.
15. The ground raised by the police in the police custody petition that they need to seize the other material including storage devices, requires consideration. Hence, by considering the said ground, the petition seeking police custody has to be allowed. Therefore, the revisional court has allowed the same and hence, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the revisional court.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA October 13, 2025 KTL