The legality of an arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is upheld when the prosecution demonstrates that the procedure for informing the accused of the grounds of arrest was strictly followed, supported by contemporaneous evidence and documentary records during search and seizure operations.

: O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘learned Special Judge’) in SR. No.156 of 2026 in Crime No.01/RCA-ACB-CIU/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to declare his arrest as illegal, in violation of Sections 35, 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Investigation Unit, ACB, Hyderabad, after obtaining authorization from the Joint director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 22.01.2025 to register the case and to investigate against the petitioner that while the petitioner was in service, he acquired assets by illicit means and enriched himself during his tenure in office. The petitioner, a public servant working as a Joint Sub-Registrar, is implicated in Crime No.01/RCB-ACB-CIU/2026 registered by the ACB officials for the alleged offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was apprehended on 23.01.2026 and he was produced before the learned Special Judge and remanded to judicial custody through docket order dated 22.01.2025 till 06.02.2026 and the petitioner filed application vide S.R.No.156 of 2026 seeking to declare his arrest is illegal on the ground that the same is in violation of Sections 35, 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Special Judge, by the impugned order, dated 09.02.2026, proceeded to regularize the arrest and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody.

3. Heard Mr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner :

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer, without mentioning the grounds of arrest, took the petitioner into custody and the same is a gross violation of the Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, which constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The Investigating Officer ought to have give reasons and specified the grounds of arrest either to the petitioner or to his family members.

4.2. He further submitted that in proceedings dated 23.01.2026 issued under Section 47 of the BNSS to the petitioner, or the proceedings under Section 48 of the BNSS, which was served to the wife of the petitioner on 23.01.2026, the Investigating Officer did not mention the grounds or reasons for the arrest of the petitioner and only referred the provisions of the offences, which is a gross violation of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. In spite of the same, the learned Special Judge, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, erroneously remanded the petitioner to judicial custody and rejected the application filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge is liable to be quashed.

4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others¹2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228; and

2. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another²(2026) 1 SCC 500

5. Submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor :

5.1. Learned Special Public Prosecuto