23 May 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025, has dismissed an appeal challenging the High Court of Andhra Pradesh's decision to uphold the arrest and detention of Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy. The core of the appeal centered on whether "appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest" were supplied, as mandated by Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Background of the Case:

Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, son of the appellant Kasireddy Upender Reddy, was arrested on April 21, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024, registered with the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. The charges included offenses under 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). He was arrested from Hyderabad Airport at approximately 6 PM, and the grounds of arrest were supplied to him and later to his father. Within 24 hours of arrest, he was produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada, on April 22, 2025, at 5:15 PM, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his son's arrest was illegal due to the lack of meaningful grounds of arrest, violating Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the provisions of law and grounds for arrest were discernible from a conjoint reading of the Section 47 notice, grounds of arrest, Section 48 of BNSS, and the remand report, all served on the detenue before the remand hearing.

Arguments Presented:

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, contended that the arrest was baseless and mala fide. He argued that the son was initially treated as a witness, and only arrayed as an accused on April 19, 2025, via a case diary entry, which is not a public document. He further alleged that the son was pressured to implicate the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, with "mediators" present during interrogation. Crucially, the grounds of arrest served on April 21, 2025, were deemed to be in "total non-compliance" with Article 22 and Section 47 of BNSS, lacking specific ingredients of the alleged offenses (Sections 409 and 420 IPC). The appellant also argued that including the remand report as part of the grounds of arrest, served on April 22, 2025, violated the "as soon as may be" mandate of Article 22 and "forthwith" communication requirement of Section 47 BNSS.

Conversely, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for the State, submitted that the accused was arrayed on April 19, 2025, and arrested on April 21, 2025. He emphasized that the accused was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate within 24 hours on April 22, 2025, complying with Article 22(2). He asserted that the arrest and remand did not suffer from any infirmity. The State highlighted that the arrest memo on April 22, 2025, included sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which approval under Section 17-A was granted on April 21, 2025.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Supreme Court, presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan, extensively referred to its own recent judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269). The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1). It stressed that this information must be provided in a manner that imparts "sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds". The Court clarified that non-compliance with Article 22(1) violates fundamental rights under both Article 22 and Article 21, vitiating the arrest. Consequently, any further remand orders based on such a vitiated arrest would also be invalid.

However, the Court distinguished the present case from Vihaan Kumar, noting that in the current instance, it was "not in dispute that the grounds of arrest were supplied". After reviewing the supplied grounds of arrest (which detailed the accusations of conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering causing significant loss to the state exchequer, along with specific allegations against the accused ), the Supreme Court found them to be sufficient and meaningful.

The Court cited State of Bombay v. Atma Ram (1951 SCC 43) and Magan Lal Jivabhai, in re (AIR 1951 Bom 33), emphasizing that the test for communicating grounds of arrest is whether it enables the detained person to make a representation at the earliest opportunity. While acknowledging that Article 22(1) (governing arrests for specific offenses) does not require "full details of the offence" as much as Article 22(5) (governing preventive detention), it confirmed that the information should be "sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested," akin to a charge framed for trial.

The Supreme Court ultimately found no merit in the appeal, concluding that the requirement of providing grounds of arrest as laid down in Vihaan Kumar had been fulfilled. The dismissal of the appeal, however, leaves open the option for Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy to apply for regular bail before the competent court.

Section 47, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023  

Section 409., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860