Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Arrest And Remand In Corruption Case | Holds Remand Report Was Served On Detenue Before Hearing | Grounds Of Arrest Must Convey Basic Facts To Enable Defence
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice K. Manmadha Rao dismissed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of a judicial remand passed by a Special Judge under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Bench held that the procedural safeguards under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, were duly followed in the course of arrest and remand. The Court recorded that all statutory documents, including the arrest memo, notice under Section 47, grounds under Section 48, and the remand report, had been served on the detenue prior to the remand hearing. Concluding that there was no violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards, the Court dismissed the writ petition and permitted the detenue to pursue remedies available under law.
The matter arose from the registration of Crime No. 21 of 2024 on 23.09.2024 at the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was against unknown accused persons. The individual in question was subsequently arrested as Accused No. 1 in the said crime on 21.04.2025 at 6:00 PM in Hyderabad. The arrest took place prior to the official memo filed before the Special Judge identifying him as an accused in the case.
Following his arrest, the detenue was produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, at 5:15 PM on 22.04.2025. After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the records submitted, the Special Judge remanded the detenue to judicial custody until 06.05.2025 under Section 187 of the BNSS. The remand order included charges under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B IPC, along with Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Subsequently, the detenue’s father filed a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, declaring the arrest as illegal due to procedural lapses and questioning the legality of the remand order. The petition challenged the arrest on the grounds that the individual was apprehended even before he was officially designated as an accused. It was submitted that the memo naming him as Accused No. 1 was filed before the Special Judge only on 22.04.2025, a day after the arrest.
The petition further contended that the arrest memo failed to meet the constitutional standards prescribed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the statutory requirements under Section 47 of the BNSS. It cited the Supreme Court decision in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], asserting that the grounds of arrest should contain factual details specific to the individual and not merely general reasons.
Additionally, the petition pointed out that while the notice under Section 47 specified offences under IPC provisions, the Prevention of Corruption Act offences were only mentioned in the remand report. It was contended that this omission invalidated the arrest and rendered the remand arbitrary. The petitioner also argued that the mere inclusion of such offences in the remand report was insufficient and did not comply with Section 48 of the BNSS.
In reply, the Advocate General submitted that the individual was shown as an accused on 19.04.2025 by an entry in the case diary and that the memo filed on 22.04.2025 merely informed the Court of this prior inclusion. It was further argued that all statutory documents—including the notice under Section 47, the grounds of arrest under Section 48, and the remand report—were served upon the detenue prior to the hearing before the Special Judge.
The Advocate General stated that these documents contained all necessary information regarding the offences and grounds of arrest, thereby ensuring compliance with both Article 22 of the Constitution and the procedural mandates under BNSS. It was also pointed out that the Special Judge had specifically recorded in the remand order that the remand report had been served on the detenue, which the detenue had signed.
In response, the petitioner referred to the judgment in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another [2025 SCC Online 269], which held that mere mention of grounds of arrest in the remand report was not sufficient if the same was not served to the arrestee before the remand hearing.
The Court examined Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which states: “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
It also cited Section 47(1) of the BNSS, which reads: “Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”
The Bench referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prabir Purkayastha, stating: “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 himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.”
Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding the sequence of arrest and formal accusation, the Court recorded: “The learned Advocate General would contend that the detenue was included as an accused, in Crime No.21 of 2024, on 19.04.2025, by way of an entry in the case diary and the memo intimating such inclusion was filed with the Special Judge, on 22.04.2025.”
The Court then turned to the core question of whether the statutory and constitutional mandates had been satisfied. It noted: “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.”
Regarding compliance with service requirements, the Court observed: “The learned Special Judge, had specifically recorded that even the remand report had been served on the detenue prior to the commencement of the hearing before the Special Judge.”
“The copy of the remand report, filed by the respondents, show that the detenue had signed a copy of the remand report as service of the said grounds of arrest on him.”
In response to the argument based on Vihaan Kumar, the Court clarified the factual distinction: “In Vihaan Kumar… neither the detenue nor his relatives or family members had been served with any document… In the present case, the Special Judge had recorded that the remand report had been served on the detenue.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that documents were served only after the hearing, the Court stated: “This contention does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the Special Judge had recorded, in the remand order, that the remand report had been served on the detenue.”
The Division Bench concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition. It stated: “Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this would not preclude the detenue from availing of his remedies under law for being set at liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The Bench further recorded: “As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Bugulu Sreeteja, Advocate; Senior Counsel Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy
Case Title: Kesireddy Upender Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010217732025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10858 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, Justice K. Manmadha Rao
[Read/Download order]
