Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Habeas Corpus Rejection in CID Arrest Case — Grounds of Arrest Held Compliant with Article 22 and BNSS. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the arrest and detention were lawful as the grounds of arrest and remand report were served on the detenue prior to the remand hearing.

  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Kasireddy Upender Reddy, filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleging that his son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, was illegally arrested by the CID on 21.04.2025 in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 for offences under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC (now Sections 318, 316(5), 61(2) BNS) and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The son was arrested at Hyderabad Airport at 6 PM, supplied with grounds of arrest, and produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 22.04.2025 within 24 hours. The magistrate granted police remand. The appellant contended that the grounds of arrest were vague and lacked material particulars, violating Article 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 BNSS. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the grounds of arrest, notice under Section 47, and remand report were served on the detenue prior to the remand hearing, as recorded by the Special Judge and evidenced by the detenue's signature on the remand report. The Supreme Court, after hearing submissions, found no illegality in the arrest or detention. The Court noted that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing, the detenue was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, and the remand report containing detailed grounds was served. The appeal was dismissed, but the Court clarified that the detenue could pursue other legal remedies for bail. The judgment emphasizes that compliance with Article 22 and BNSS requires meaningful communication of grounds, which was satisfied in this case through service of the remand report.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus - Illegal Arrest - Grounds of Arrest - Article 22 of the Constitution, Sections 47, 48 BNSS - The appellant sought habeas corpus alleging illegal arrest of his son without meaningful grounds. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grounds of arrest, notice under Section 47, and remand report were served on the detenue prior to the remand hearing, satisfying constitutional and statutory requirements. The Supreme Court upheld this view, finding no illegality in the arrest or detention. (Paras 2-4)

B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest - Grounds of Arrest - Compliance - Article 22, Section 47 BNSS - The appellant argued that the grounds of arrest lacked material particulars, especially regarding ingredients of Sections 409 and 420 IPC. However, the High Court noted that the remand report containing detailed grounds was served on the detenue and acknowledged by his signature. The Supreme Court found no violation of Article 22 or Section 47 BNSS, as the grounds were communicated in writing and the detenue was produced before the magistrate within 24 hours. (Paras 3-4)

C) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Service of Remand Report - Section 187 BNSS - The Special Judge recorded that the remand report was served on the detenue prior to the hearing. The detenue's signature on the report confirmed service. The Supreme Court held that this satisfied the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest, distinguishing cases where no such service occurred. (Para 3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arrest of the appellant's son was illegal and the grounds of arrest furnished were in compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, thereby justifying a writ of habeas corpus.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order. The Court found no illegality in the arrest or detention, as the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing, the detenue was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, and the remand report containing detailed grounds was served on him. The Court clarified that the detenue may pursue other legal remedies for bail.

Law Points

  • Article 22 of the Constitution
  • Section 47 BNSS
  • Section 48 BNSS
  • Section 179 BNSS
  • Section 187 BNSS
  • Sections 420
  • 409
  • 120-B IPC
  • Sections 7
  • 7A
  • 8
  • 13(1)(b)
  • 13(2) PC Act
  • Sections 318
  • 316(5)
  • 61(2) BNS
  • Habeas Corpus
  • Grounds of Arrest
  • Remand Report
  • Service of Documents
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 INSC 768

Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7746 of 2025)

2025-01-01

J.B. Pardiwala

2025 INSC 768

Kasireddy Upender Reddy

State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against dismissal of habeas corpus petition challenging arrest and detention of appellant's son.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus for release of his son from alleged illegal detention.

Filing Reason

Appellant alleged that his son's arrest was illegal and grounds of arrest were not meaningful, violating Article 22 and BNSS.

Previous Decisions

High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition on 08.05.2025 in W.P. No. 10858 of 2025, holding that grounds of arrest and remand report were served on the detenue.

Issues

Whether the arrest of the appellant's son was illegal and in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS. Whether the grounds of arrest furnished were meaningful and compliant with legal requirements. Whether the detention pursuant to the arrest was unlawful, warranting a writ of habeas corpus.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the son was not an accused at the time of arrest, as he was only issued notices under Section 179 BNSS as a witness, and his inclusion as accused was only by a case diary entry not public. Appellant contended that the grounds of arrest lacked material particulars, especially ingredients of Sections 409 and 420 IPC, making them an eyewash. Appellant alleged that during interrogation, the son was pressured to implicate the former Chief Minister, and mediators were present to force a confession. Respondent State argued that the grounds of arrest, notice under Section 47, and remand report were served on the detenue prior to the remand hearing, as recorded by the Special Judge and evidenced by the detenue's signature.

Ratio Decidendi

The arrest and detention of the appellant's son were lawful as the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing and the remand report containing detailed grounds was served on the detenue prior to the remand hearing, satisfying the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS. The mere fact that the grounds of arrest did not list all ingredients of the offences does not render the arrest illegal when the remand report provides sufficient particulars and is served on the detenue.

Judgment Excerpts

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. The High Court adjudicated the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and ultimately vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the same holding as under: ... the Special Judge had recorded that the remand report had been served on the detenue and the copy of the remand report, containing the signature of the detenue, produced by the respondents would also fortify this position.

Procedural History

The appellant's son was arrested on 21.04.2025. He was produced before the Special Judge on 22.04.2025, who granted police remand. The appellant filed a habeas corpus petition (W.P. No. 10858 of 2025) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed on 08.05.2025. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 22, Article 226
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 47, Section 48, Section 179, Section 187
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 420, Section 409, Section 120-B
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Section 318, Section 316(5), Section 61(2)
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): Section 7, Section 7A, Section 8, Section 13(1)(b), Section 13(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Habeas Corpus Rejection in CID Arrest Case — Grounds of Arrest Held Compliant with Article 22 and BNSS. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the arrest and detention were lawful as the grounds of arr...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act Proceedings for Lack of Violence Allegations and Non-Application of Mind. Definition of 'Gang' Under Section 2(b) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act Requires Violence or Threat; Procedural Rules Mandate Independent Appl...