1. Arrest for conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust — Challenge to legality of detention based on adequacy of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) and BNSS. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 905
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Kasireddy Upender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7746 of 2025) With SLP (Crl.) No. 5691 of 2025
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, AOR Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. M. Bala Krishna, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaybhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Serena Jethmalani, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, AOR Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. M. Bala Krishna, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaybhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Serena Jethmalani, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Adv.
Grounds for arrest must adequately inform the arrestee of accusations to uphold constitutional protections against unlawful detention, ensuring compliance with Article 22(1).
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 409, 120-B; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318, 316(5), 61(2); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Illegal arrest and detention - Appeal dismissed; grounds of arrest provided were deemed sufficient and meaningful as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution; compliance with the legal requirements upheld. (Paras 21, 37)
Facts of the case:
The appeal stems from the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition by the appellant, whose son was arrested by the CID on allegations of conspiracy and corruption related to a liquor scam. Grounds of arrest were questioned for lack of clarity and justification. (Paras 2, 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the initial grounds for arrest, asserting compliance with constitutional mandates. The arrest was deemed lawful as the appellant's son was notified of pertinent details as required. (Paras 21, 38)
Issues: Whether the grounds provided at the time of arrest were meaningful enough to comply with constitutional protections against unlawful detention. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that grounds of arrest must adequately inform the detained individual of the accusations, enabling them to prepare their defense and challenge the legality of the detention, thus aligning with constitutional rights. (Paras 21, 28)
Result: Appeal dismissed, maintaining the legality of the arrest based on provided grounds.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The constitutional protections against unlawful detention require that grounds for arrest be adequately communicated to the arrestee as soon as possible, ensuring the arrestee understands the accusations against them (!) (!) .
-
The grounds of arrest must be meaningful, specific, and provide sufficient detail about the accusations to enable the arrestee or their counsel to prepare a proper defense and challenge the legality of the detention (!) (!) .
-
The mode of communication of grounds should be effective and understandable, ideally in writing, and must be conveyed in a manner that the arrestee comprehends, to fulfill the constitutional requirement and prevent arbitrary detention (!) (!) .
-
The failure to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible, or providing vague or incomplete grounds, renders the arrest illegal and the continued detention unlawful (!) (!) .
-
The police are responsible for proving that the grounds of arrest were properly communicated. If the arrestee claims non-compliance, the burden of proof lies with the authorities to establish that the constitutional and legal requirements were met (!) (!) .
-
In cases where the grounds of arrest are not meaningful or are merely an eyewash, or where the arrest is based on illegal or unsanctioned grounds, the arrest can be declared invalid, and the detention can be deemed unlawful (!) .
-
Specific procedural safeguards, such as production before a magistrate within 24 hours and proper documentation, are essential to uphold constitutional rights. Any deviation from these procedures can invalidate the arrest (!) (!) .
-
The legal framework emphasizes that the grounds of arrest should not be based solely on documents like remand reports unless they are served properly and contain sufficient details at the time of arrest (!) (!) .
-
When constitutional mandates are violated, such as failure to inform the grounds properly, the arrest is vitiated, and the person must be released, regardless of subsequent proceedings or charges (!) (!) .
-
The core principle is that the arrest process must be transparent, specific, and in compliance with constitutional and legal requirements to prevent arbitrary detention and protect individual liberty (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Whether grounds of arrest were meaningful and sufficient or merely a formality — Validity of arrest without specific sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Evaluation of provided grounds of arrest against the requirement of being meaningful — Distinction between absolute failure to communicate grounds and communication of insufficient grounds. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
4. Grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) must be meaningful and sufficient for the arrestee to understand the cause of detention, though full offence details are not mandatory. (Para 16 , 18 , 28 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Detention held lawful as grounds of arrest were found to be meaningful and sufficient. (Para 38 , 39 )
6. Is the communication of grounds of arrest a mandatory requirement under the Constitution?
Yes, informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). Failure to comply vitiates the arrest, rendering continued custody illegal and violating the right to personal liberty under Article 21. (Para 16 , 18 )
7. What constitutes sufficient communication of the grounds of arrest?
Communication must provide sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds in a language the arrestee understands. It must be meaningful enough to enable the arrestee to consult an advocate and seek legal remedies like bail or habeas corpus. (Para 16 , 18 , 28 )
8. Must the authorities provide full details of the offence at the time of arrest?
No, it is not necessary to furnish full details of the offence. The information must simply be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why they have been arrested, similar to a charge framed by a court. (Para 28 , 36 )
9. Who bears the burden of proving that the grounds of arrest were communicated?
When an arrestee alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proof lies with the Investigating Officer or agency to prove that the grounds of arrest were effectively communicated. (Para 16 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2808 OF 2025 (@ SLP (CRIMINAL) No. 7746 OF 2025)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dated 8.05.2025 in W.P. No. 10858 of 2025 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his son viz. Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy came to be illegally arrested by the CID and is in unlawful detention, came to be dismissed.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under:
a. The son of the appellant herein, namely, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy came to be arrested on 21.04.2025 in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2025 registered with CID Police Station, Mangalagiri for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 409 read with Section 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE respectively (for short, the “IPC”) (Now Sections 318 , 316(5) read with Section 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively (for short, the “ BNS ”)).
b. It appears from the materials on record that on 19.04.2025 the son of the appellant herein was arrayed as accused no. 1 by way of an entry in the case diary.
c. The son of the appellant was arrested at around 6 P.M. from the Hyderabad Airport. At the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were supplied to him and later were also served on his father i.e. the appellant herein.
d. Pursuant to the arrest, the son of the appellant was brought to Vijayawada and was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate i.e. the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada at 5.15 P.M. on 22.04.2025 i.e. within 24 hours of the arrest.
d. It appears that police remand was prayed for and the same came to be granted vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases.
e. The operative part of the remand order reads thus:
“12. Remand report further reveals that, police have to examine several witnesses and has to apprehend several Government and non Government officials and investigation is only at preliminary stage and police requires time to conduct thorough investigation in this case. Therefore, request for remand of Al is accepted, hence, Al is remanded to judicial custody under Section 187 of BNSS till 6.5.025, for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 120 B IPC and Sections 7, 7A and 8, 13(1)(b), 13 (2) of P.C.Act, Al is hereby ordered to be kept in District Jail, Vijayawada under proper escort.
Sd/- P.Bhaskara Rao
SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE AND ACB
CASES-CUM-III ADJ. VIJAYAWADA”
f. The appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court and prayed for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the arrest of his son was per se illegal and therefore, his continued detention in jail could be said to be unlawful and thereby, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
g. The writ of habeas corpus was prayed for essentially on the ground that although the grounds of arrest were served upon the appellant’s son at the time of his arrest, yet such grounds were not meaningful and were just an eyewash. The grounds of arrest lacked in material particulars.
h. It was argued before the High Court that if appropriate grounds for arrest are not furnished at the time of arrest then the arrest would be violative of Article 22 of the Constitution read with Sections 47 and 48 respectively of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 respectively (for short, the “ BNSS ”).
i. The High Court adjudicated the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and ultimately vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the same holding as under:
“11. In the present case, both the provisions of law as well as the grounds for arrest, can be made out, on a conjoint reading of the notice under Section 47, the grounds of arrest, 48 of BNSS and the remand report which were all served on the detenue prior to the hearing of his remand application. The learned Special Judge, had specifi
