Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli, JJ.
Bolla Kiran – Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.9972 of 2026
Decided on 23.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay
For the Respondents: Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader
IMPORTANT POINT
Arrest and Remand – Service of remand report to arrestees, containing grounds of arrest is communication of grounds of arrest to arrestees even if notices under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS did not contain grounds of arrest.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 226 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 47 and 48 – Habeas Corpus Petition – Challenging order of remand and detention – Communication of grounds of arrest should be made at the time of arrest or as soon as after arrest, in writing – It may be informed orally at the time of arrest but written communication should be made within a reasonable time of arrest – Service of remand report to arrestees, containing grounds of arrest is communication of grounds of arrest to arrestees even if notices under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS did not contain grounds of arrest – In absence of any factual foundation it cannot be presumed that communication of grounds of arrest vide remand report is not in language which arrestees do not understand – There is no violation of Article 22(1) of Constitution – There is no violation of fundamental right of arrestees under Article 21 of Constitution – Detention of detenu is not an illegal detention. (Paras 15, 28, 29, 30 and 31)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the arrest of one Tanigadapa Prasad S/o. Tanigadapa Subba Rao and the other, Tungala Rukhmini w/o. Tungala Yesupadam, (in short the detenues) (A1 & A2 respectively) as also the order of their remand dated 09.04.2026 passed in Criminal No.95 of 2026 of Mylavaram Police Station passed by II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvidu – FAC – Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mylavaram (in short ‘the Magistrate’) as illegal; to set aside the same, and consequently to set free the above named detenues.
3. The two detenues were arrested by the police of Mylavaram Police Station and were produced before the Magistrate. The order of remand was passed on 09.04.2026, remanding them to Judicial custody till 23.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 127(1) r/w. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’), punishable with an imprisonment upto 10 years and fine.
4. Challenging the order of remand and the detention as illegal and seeking their release, the ground raised is that the detenues were not communicated the grounds of their arrest.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined only to the ground that, no ground of arrest was communicated in writing and on the basis of vague notices under Section 47 & 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) the remand was ordered, which were only arrest intimation (annexure P6 & P7). Those notices did not contain the ground of arrest. Those notices were only the intimation of the arrest of the detenues giving the date, time, crime number and Sections under which they were arrested and their entitlement to apply for bail while producing them for the purpose of remand before the Magistrate. So, there was no communication of the ground of arrest to the detenues.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500 to contend that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he or she understands within a reasonable time and in any case atleast two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate, and in case of non compliance the arrest and the remand order would be rendered illegal. The person/arrestee would be entitled for his/her liberty to be set free.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799 for the same proposition that is that the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and its non compliance will be violation of the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by the Articles 22(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is no dispute on the legal proposition, well settled in the cases of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) but he submitted that in the present case there is no non-compliance with the requirement of the communication or informing of the grounds of arrest to the arrestee/ detenues. He submitted that the copy of the remand report was served on the detenues. The remand report contained the grounds of arrest. So, there was communication of the grounds of arrest and there is no violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(1) or/and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance in Pappula Chalama Reddy v. State of
