(Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025), delivered on 23 May 20251.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 105 Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
The central issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was illegal due to the alleged lack of “appropriate and meaningful” grounds of arrest being supplied at the time of his arrest, thereby violating Article 22 of the Constitution12.
Background of the Case
The appellant’s son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, was arrested on 21 April 2025, from Hyderabad Airport in connection with a case registered under Sections 420, 409, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)34. At the time of his arrest, written grounds of arrest were supplied to him and subsequently to his father, the appellant45. He was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, and police remand was granted4….
The appellant filed a writ petition for habeas corpus before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the arrest was illegal and his son’s continued detention unlawful, violating Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution8. The core argument was that the supplied grounds of arrest were not “meaningful” and lacked material particulars, essentially being an “eyewash”89. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the requirements of Article 22 and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) had been complied with910. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court11.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
• His son was not an accused person at the time of arrest, as he was previously issued notices under Section 179 of the BNSS as a witness, and was only named an accused in the case diary two days before his arrest1213.
• The arrest was mala fide and baseless, alleging that his son was pressured to implicate the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in a liquor excise policy scam1415.
• The grounds of arrest provided were not in full compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS16.
◦ They did not sufficiently explain the ingredients of the offences (Sections 409 and 420 IPC), lacking details on entrustment, misappropriation, deception, or inducement17.
◦ The remand report, which contained additional details, was served after detention, violating the “as soon as may be” and “forthwith” communication requirements of Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS1819.
◦ The invocation of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) offences in the remand report was illegal, as there was no sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act specifically for his son, nor were the allegations related to his son’s official duties as an “IT Advisor”20….
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Andhra Pradesh)
The State maintained that:
• The son was arrayed as accused A1 in the case diary on 19 April 2025, prior to his arrest24.
• The grounds of arrest were supplied at the time of arrest and fully complied with the directions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, which require sufficient knowledge of basic facts25.
• The accused was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate within 24 hours, complying with Article 22(2) and other procedural requirements726.
• The invocation of PC Act sections was justified, as the required approval under Section 17A was granted on 21 April 2025, and the son’s role as an “IT Advisor” meant Section 17A approval was not even necessary for him, as his duties were unrelated to the alleged liquor scam23….
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal2930. The Court focused on the interpretation and application of Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, drawing heavily from its recent judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another31.
The Court reiterated several key principles from Vihaan Kumar regarding the constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of arrest:
• Mandatory Requirement: Informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)32.
• Meaningful Communication: The information must be provided effectively, in a language the arrestee understands, imparting “sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds”32…. This is to enable the arrested person to apply for bail, move for habeas corpus, or prepare their defence35.
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: Non-compliance vitiates the arrest and renders continued custody illegal. However, it does not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet, or trial3637.
• Magistrate’s Duty: When an arrested person is produced for remand, the Magistrate must ascertain compliance with Article 22(1)37.
In the present case, the Court distinguished it from Vihaan Kumar, noting that here, grounds of arrest were supplied, but their meaningfulness was challenged38. After examining the grounds of arrest supplied to the appellant’s son, 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”39.
The Court held that the information provided was sufficient to give the arrested person a broad idea of the accusations and why he was being taken into custody3940. It clarified that full details of the offence are not necessary, but enough information should be provided to enable the arrestee to understand the reason for their arrest40. The Court stated that the grounds of arrest provided were similar to a charge and fulfilled the requirements40.
Regarding the specific arguments:
• The Court noted that the grounds of arrest clearly stated the case of “Conspiracy, Cheating, Criminal breach of trust, Corruption and Money Laundering” and detailed specific acts attributed to the son, such as organising kickback-driven liquor trade, controlling issuance of OFSs, collecting kickbacks, threatening companies, floating distilleries, and investing crime proceeds541.
• The Court’s conclusion on the sufficiency of the grounds implicitly addressed the arguments regarding the lack of specificity for IPC offences and the legality of PC Act invocation, finding the supplied grounds to be adequate under Article 22(1)29. The Court ultimately concluded that the “requirement in terms of para 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) could be said to have been fulfilled”29.
Therefore, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the High Court’s decision2930. The Court clarified that the son could still apply for regular bail before the competent court29.
