Back
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
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.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the circumstances surrounding the appellant's son's arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the arguments presented for both sides regarding the legality of the arrest. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the court's observations on constitutional compliance in the arrest. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. the reasoning by which the court found the arrest valid. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. the final conclusion of the court dismissing the appeal. (Para 38 , 40) |
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:
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
Grounds for arrest must adequately inform the arrestee of accusations to uphold constitutional protections against unlawful detention, ensuring compliance with Article 22(1).
(1) Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – A police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged – The....
The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, is a mandatory condition that must be adhered to, failing which the arr....
Absence of written grounds of arrest does not mandate bail absent prejudice; substantial compliance via awareness suffices in serious offences, especially pre-'henceforth' rulings.
The court established that failure to inform an arrestee of grounds for arrest promptly renders detention illegal, violating constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.
The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional obligation that, if breached, may vitiate the legality of the arrest.
The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing does not render detention illegal if substantial compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates is demonstrated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
