Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6598
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, Dr K Manmadha Rao, JJ
Kesireddy Upender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 10858/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bugulu Sree Teja
For the Respondents:The Advocate General
Proper procedural requirements for arrest and remand were not violated as per Articles and relevant sections, affirming the legality of the arrest.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 36, 47, 48 - Habeas Corpus - Illegal arrest claimed on grounds of improper procedure followed during arrest under BNSS. (Paras 1, 3, 8, 10)
(B) Grounds of Arrest - Distinction between 'grounds' and 'reasons for arrest' emphasized - Arrest memo required to communicate specifics of the charges against the individual - Mere inclusion in remand does not suffice. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to declare the arrest of the detenue illegal, alleging non-compliance with procedural requirements prior to his remand for fraud and corruption.
Findings of Court:
Compliance of Article 22 and BNSS Sections was held valid as per documentation provided to the detenue prior to remand.
Issues: Core issues revolved around the legality of the arrest procedure and sufficiency of information concerning the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: Court upheld that procedural formalities were followed appropriately, allowing for the remand and adequately informing the accused.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks declaration of illegal arrest. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. representation of lawfulness during arrest process. (Para 3 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments against arrest based on procedural violations. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. assessment of compliance with legal requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion of the court affirming remand legality. (Para 12 , 13) |
The Court made the following order:
(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The genesis of the present writ petition arises out of Crime No.21 of 2024 which was registered on 23.09.2024, under Section 420, 409 and 120-B of I.P.C in the C.I.D. police station, Mangalagiri, against unknown accused. The detenue, was arrested, on the ground that he was accused No.1 in the said crime, at 6 p.m., on 21.04.2025, in Hyderabad. The detenue was produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada at 5.15 p.m on 22.04.2025. The Special Judge, after perusing the record produced along with the remand report and after hearing the learned counsel for detenue had passed an order of remand, dated 22.04.2025, remanding the detenue to judicial custody under Section 187 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „ BNSS ‟), till 06.05.2025, for offences under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of I.P.C and Sections 7 , 7A, 8, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.
2. The father of the detenue has approached this Court, by way of this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the arrest of the detenue as an illegal arrest as the procedure under Section 36 of BNSS was not followed and for a further declaration that the remand order, dated 22.04.2025, passed by the Special Judge was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to well established legal principles.
3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Bugulu Sree Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents have made their submissions.
4. Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel while reiterating the grounds raised in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, raised the following grounds to assail the arrest of the detenue and the subsequent remand order.
i) The detenue was arrested even before he was named as accused No.1 in the crime. The memo to include him, as accused No.1, was filed by the Investigating Officer, only on 22.04.2025, before the Special Judge, while the detenue was arrested on 21.04.2025;
ii) The Memo of arrest served on the detenue does not meet the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS . The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2024) 8 SCC 254] in paragraph No.48, had held as follows:
“It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase „reasons for arrest‟ and „grounds of arrest‟. The „reasons for arrest‟ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the „grounds of arrest‟ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending
