Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Raj Kesireddy's Arrest for Not Furnishing Written Grounds
In a significant ruling reinforcing safeguards, the has quashed the arrest and of former IT Advisor Raj Kesireddy (Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy), holding that the investigating agency’s failure to furnish written before his production violated the constitutional mandate under .
The order by Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela declared the and directed Kesireddy’s release, while clarifying that the investigation may continue with his cooperation. The court also quashed the similar of former APSBCL Managing Director Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy in the connected matter.
Breaking Down the Legal Faultlines
The case arose from Crime No. 11 of 2026 registered by the of the , alleging manipulation of liquor transportation tenders of the between 2019 and 2024. Kesireddy, already in judicial custody in an earlier ECIR registered by the , was served a notice under and had been cooperating with the investigation following interim protection from the High Court.
On , pursuant to a production warrant obtained by the SIT, Kesireddy was taken from the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad at 9:35 a.m., medically examined at the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada at around 3:00 p.m., and produced before the Special Judge at 4:20 p.m., where he was formally arrested and remanded.
The Core Legal Question: Violated
The central issue was whether the were furnished to the detenu as mandated by of the Constitution and Section 47 of the . The petitioners argued that no written grounds were supplied either at the time of taking custody from jail or within the permissible two-hour window before production before the magistrate.
The state contended that the detailed report containing the grounds was furnished upon arrival at court, and that the Special Judge had recorded that the accused acknowledged receiving the case record and being informed of the grounds.
Key Observations from the Court
The High Court rejected the state’s argument. It observed that the reading of grounds and case papers during the proceedings does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of . The court stated:
“In view of the above precedents, which are , it can be held, without any hesitation that the order of the Special Judge that the detailed report/case record, the order of arrest, and the contained in the order were read over to the petitioner does not amount to sufficient compliance and it totally violates of the , which attains high constitutional and legal significance.”
Referring to the ’s judgment in , the High Court highlighted the mandatory requirement that must be communicated in writing at the time of arrest, or at the very least, two hours before the accused is produced for . The court noted that the arrest was effectively effected at 9:35 a.m. when Kesireddy was taken into custody from the jail, and not at 4:20 p.m. when he was formally produced in court.
“Here, the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble regarding furnishing of the particulars before two hours of arrest is missing and totally eclipsed by the Investigating Officer and the same was ignored by the in the order.”
The court also took exception to the medical examination being conducted before the formal arrest, observing that this was contrary to , which requires such examination to occur soon after the arrest is made .
Precedents Cited: Strengthening the Safeguard
The judgment extensively relied on the ’s line of authorities emphasizing the right to be informed of the , including , , , and . The court reiterated that the distinction between “” and “” is critical, and that generic reasons cannot substitute specific, personalized grounds.
It also referenced to highlight the pattern of registering a fresh case to frustrate bail granted in an earlier case, noting that no urgency existed for the arrest given that Kesireddy was already in custody and was cooperating with the investigation.
The Decision and Its Implications
Resultantly, the court quashed the orders dated against both Kesireddy and Vasudeva Reddy, directing the SIT to release them forthwith. The court, however, clarified that the investigation may proceed without hindrance and that the accused must cooperate with the investigating agency when called upon.
This ruling serves as a strong reminder to investigating agencies that in arrest, especially the failure to furnish written grounds in a timely manner, will not pass constitutional muster. It reinforces that under can only be curtailed through a procedure that scrupulously adheres to the safeguards under , non-compliance rendering the arrest and consequent illegal.
