1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 432 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) by the petitioner/accused, assailing the remand order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Crime No. 24 of 2025 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Pujari Mani Sahith, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner stands accused of offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(f)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 5(1)(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the mother of the victim lodged a complaint on 07.02.2025 at 4:00 PM, reporting that her minor daughter had been missing since 03.02.2025. During investigation, on 07.11.2025, the complainant appeared at the police station along with her daughter, who had returned home at about 8:00 PM. Upon recording the victim’s statement, the investigating officer discovered the alleged involvement of the petitioner, who was then arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, resulting in the impugned remand order.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the remand order was passed mechanically and without due appreciation of material evidence placed before the Magistrate. He specifically argues that the remand was effected beyond the statutory 24-hour period prescribed under Section 59(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

               5.2. He point outs that, the Remand Case Diary reflects that the petitioner was apprehended at 4:00 PM on 18.11.2025, while the remand order records his production before the Magistrate at 5:00 PM on 19.11.2025 clearly beyond 24 hours. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in Syed Dastagir v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 606, and T. Ramadevi v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 4288, where it was held that production of an accused before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours from apprehension renders such detention illegal, entitling the accused to bail.

               5.3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a minor, aged 17 years, as evidenced by his Aadhaar Card showing his date of birth as 01.01.2008. Despite this, the learned Magistrate erroneously treated him as a major based on the remand case diary, which reflected his age as “19/20”. It is argued that the Magistrate failed to appreciate that, as a juvenile in conflict with law, the petitioner ought to have been produced before the Juvenile Justice Board in compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”), rather than being remanded to regular judicial custody. On these grounds, he prays that the impugned remand order be set aside and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner is involved in serious offences under the POCSO Act, as the victim’s statement reveals sexual exploitation by the petitioner, which prompted her to leave her home. While conceding that the record indicates a delay beyond 24 hours between apprehension and remand, he contends that such delay may not vitiate the proceedings given the gravity of the allegations. He also submits that the petitioner’s age was recorded as 19 years in the Remand Case Diary, and therefore, his plea of minority requires verification by the competent authority.

7. Upon consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention.

8. The record clearly establishes that the petitioner was apprehended on 18.11.2025 at 4:00 PM, but was produced before the Magistrate only on 19.11.2025 at 5:00 PM, thereby exceeding the mandatory 24-hour limit. The settled legal position, as reaffirmed in Syed Dastagir (supra) and T. Ramadevi (supra), is that the period of detention must be calculated from the time of actual apprehension, not from the time of formal arrest or registration of remand request. Any detention beyond 24 hours without judicial sanction constitutes illegal custody, infringing upon the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. The learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, failed to address this vital aspect, thereby vitiating the order of remand. The omission to examine the legality of custody before authorizing remand is a serious procedural irregularity affecting the validity of the order. Consequently, the remand order dated 19.11.2025 is set aside.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail, upon executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. Further, the petitioner shall not interfere with the ongoing investigation, shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer, and shall make himself available for further inquiry as required.

11. As regards the plea of minority, the learned Magistrate is directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, giving both the petitioner and the prosecution an opportunity to produce documentary and oral evidence. Upon such determination, further proceedings shall continue either before the Juvenile Justice Board (if the petitioner is found to be a juvenile) or before the regular court. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

12. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 stands set aside. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.