23 May 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law  

In a recent judgment on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a criminal appeal seeking a writ of habeas corpus, thereby upholding the arrest and remand of Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy. The appeal, filed by his father, Kasireddy Upender Reddy, had argued that the arrest was illegal due to the absence of "meaningful" grounds of arrest. The Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, meticulously examined the constitutional and statutory provisions related to arrest, particularly Article 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Background of the Case:

Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy was arrested on April 21, 2025, at approximately 6 P.M. from Hyderabad Airport, in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024, registered with the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. The charges against him included Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (now Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Although notices under Section 179 of the BNSS were previously issued to him as a witness, he was arrayed as accused no. 1 in the case diary on April 19, 2025.

Upon arrest, the grounds of arrest were supplied to him and subsequently to his father, the appellant. He was produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada, at 5:15 P.M. on April 22, 2025, within 24 hours of his arrest, and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

Appellant's Contentions:

The appellant's primary contention was that the arrest was per se illegal because the grounds of arrest provided were not "meaningful" and lacked material particulars, thus violating Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. It was argued that the grounds failed to specify the ingredients of the alleged offenses under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, such as entrustment or deception. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that the inclusion of the remand report as part of the grounds of arrest, served a day after the arrest, violated the constitutional mandate of informing grounds "as soon as may be" or "forthwith". The appellant also raised concerns about the belated invocation of Prevention of Corruption Act offenses without proper sanction under Section 17A of the Act.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Findings:

The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by reiterating the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, emphasizing the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest "as soon as may be". The Court extensively referred to its recent landmark judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which underscored the mandatory nature of providing specific and actionable reasons for arrest beyond mere legal provisions.

However, the Court distinguished the present case from Vihaan Kumar, where there was an absolute failure to provide grounds of arrest. In the instant case, the grounds were admittedly supplied in writing. The core question before the Court was whether these supplied grounds were "meaningful".

Upon reviewing the "GROUNDS OF ARREST" document, the Supreme Court concluded that it was "difficult for us to take the view that the grounds do not make any sense or are not meaningful or are just an eyewash". The Court highlighted that the document detailed the nature of the alleged offenses (conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering causing significant loss to the state exchequer), the period of alleged activities, and the key manipulations discovered by an enquiry committee.

The grounds of arrest provided specific accusations against Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, including his alleged role as a "key person in organizing the kickback driven liquor trade," controlling OFS issuance, collecting kickbacks, threatening a company, floating a distillery, investing crime proceeds, and absconding from investigation.

The Court cited precedents, including State of Bombay v. Atma Ram, emphasizing that the test is whether the communication of grounds is "sufficient to enable the detained person to make a representation at the earliest opportunity". While full details of the offense are not necessary under Article 22(1), the information must be sufficient for the arrested person to understand why they have been arrested, akin to a charge framed for trial.

Regarding the appellant's contention that the Prevention of Corruption Act charges were invoked without proper sanction, the Court noted that this issue was primarily about the legality of the arrest and not the subsequent proceedings. The Court reiterated that a "change in law" due to an interpretation by a court or tribunal is distinct from a direct change in law, and thus Article 10.5.1 (ii) of the PPA was not applicable in this case. The Supreme Court determined that the grounds provided were sufficient to inform the arrestee of the accusations against him.

Conclusion:

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it, clarifying that Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy remains in judicial custody and is free to apply for regular bail before the competent court. The judgment reinforces the principle that while the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is fundamental, the grounds themselves need not be an exhaustive account of every detail, but rather a "meaningful" communication that allows the arrestee to understand the reasons for their detention and exercise their legal rights effectively.

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023