Andhra Pradesh HC Rejects Plea Seeking Release Of YouTuber Ravan In UAPA Case Over Alleged Content Extolling Maoist Outfit

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of YouTuber Batchalakuri Joseph alias Ravan, who was remanded to judicial custody in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) over alleged online content extolling the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and its leaders.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar held that Ravan's detention could not be declared illegal, as he had been produced before the Magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period after excluding the time necessary for travel.

"The custody of the detenu is not illegal, and a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot, be issued for his release" the Court held.

The petition was filed by the Christian Joint Action Committee (CJAC), represented by its founder and president, Archbishop Dr Ashok Babu Chegudi alias Joshua Daniel, along with journalist Bhanu Murthy Mekala.

They challenged the remand order dated July 5, 2026, passed by the XII Additional Junior First Class Magistrate, Gannavaram.

What are the allegations against Ravan?

The FIR concerns content uploaded on Ravan's YouTube channel, “PRASHNA”, which allegedly extolled the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation and its leaders, including Madvi Hidma and Kesava Rao.

The State submitted that the content had received more than 28,000 views and 2,900 likes, along with several supportive comments. It argued that the content was accessible throughout Andhra Pradesh, including in Gannavaram, and that the police station was competent to register the FIR.

The State further contended that the case concerned online content distinct from earlier FIRs relating to a public speech allegedly delivered by Ravan at a meeting in Eluru on June 28, 2026.

The FIR was registered on July 4, 2026, under Sections 147, 148, 152, 192, 197(1)(d) and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 13 and 39 of the UAPA.

What did the petitioners argue?

The petitioners argued that Ravan had been apprehended near Vempadu Toll Plaza in Anakapalli district at around 7 pm on July 4, 2026, but was produced before the Magistrate at Gannavaram only between 7:30 pm and 8 pm the following day.

They contended that this violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which requires an arrested person to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court.

The State argued that the journey took approximately four to four-and-a-half hours and that this period had to be excluded while calculating the constitutional time limit.

Accepting the State's submission, the High Court held: "Excluding such travel time, the production of the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate was well within the prescribed period of 24 hours."

The Bench concluded that there was no violation of Article 22(2) and that the remand order could not be held illegal on that ground.

It also observed: "It cannot be said that the order of remand is invalid or mechanical or passed in routine manner."

The Court noted that the remand order recorded that Ravan had been informed of the grounds of arrest and that the Magistrate had considered the material placed before it before authorising judicial custody.

The petitioners argued that Ravan had been arrested in Anakapalli district and that the Gannavaram police should have obtained transit permission before taking him to the Magistrate there.

The High Court held that, at this stage, it could not conclude that the FIR could not have been registered at Gannavaram or that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to authorise remand.

The Bench also observed that an arrested person could be produced before a Magistrate for remand within the prescribed period even if that Magistrate was not the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Multiple FIR Challenge Left Open

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala to contend that successive FIRs could not be registered in connection with the same incident.

The State submitted that the FIR under challenge concerned online content and was distinct from earlier FIRs relating to Ravan's public speech.

The High Court declined to decide whether the FIR was impermissibly successive, holding that the question required a factual comparison of the cases and fell outside the scope of the present habeas corpus petition.

It left it open to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings, including under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where available, to challenge the FIR or investigation.

The Bench ultimately dismissed the writ petition, while leaving it open to the petitioners or Ravan to challenge the remand order on other grounds before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Court Flags Written Submissions That Appear AI-Generated

In a separate observation, the Bench criticised the practice of filing written submissions containing grounds that had not been advanced during oral arguments.

"Many times, it appears to us that the written submissions or even the drafting of the writ petition is AI generated" the Court observed.

It directed the Registry not to accept written submissions, written arguments or compilations of judgments filed at the instance of any party without an order of the Court.

Case: Christian Joint Action Committee v. State of Andhra Pradesh