The Supreme Court has held that when an arrest is made pursuant to a warrant, there is no separate requirement to explain the grounds of arrest beyond what is stated in the warrant. This ruling came while dismissing the appeal of Kasireddy Upender Reddy, who challenged the arrest and detention of his son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, in connection with a high-profile corruption case.
Background
The appellant had filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, alleging that his son was illegally arrested by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) on April 21, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 registered under Sections 420, 409 read with 120-B IPC (now Sections 318, 316(5) read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on May 8, 2025. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged that decision.
Arguments by the Appellant
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the appellant, contended that the arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He argued that:
- The arrest was unlawful as the accused was not named in the FIR and believed himself to be only a witness, based on earlier notices under Section 179 BNSS.
- The grounds of arrest furnished were vague, lacked material particulars, and failed to meaningfully inform the accused of the reasons for arrest.
- The inclusion of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was invalid due to the absence of a Section 17A sanction specific to the accused.
- During interrogation, mediators attempted to coerce a confession implicating a former Chief Minister, raising questions of mala fides.
State’s Submissions
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, submitted that:
- The arrest was lawful and made in compliance with constitutional safeguards, including production before the magistrate within 24 hours and service of arrest documents.
- Grounds of arrest were duly furnished, including detailed allegations of corruption and conspiracy involving the accused in manipulation of liquor procurement worth ₹3,200 crores.
- Sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained in relation to another public servant, but such sanction was not necessary for the accused, who was serving as an IT Advisor and not acting in an official capacity in relation to the excise matter.
Court’s Analysis
The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan examined the constitutional and statutory framework under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, Sections 47 and 48 BNSS, and the precedent laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269).
Referring to the grounds of arrest provided to the appellant’s son, the Court held:
“Having looked into the grounds of arrest… it is difficult for us to take the view that the grounds do not make any sense or are not meaningful or are just an eyewash.”
The Court clarified that while Vihaan Kumar addressed a complete failure to provide arrest grounds, in the present case the grounds were served in writing and were sufficiently detailed to inform the arrestee of the allegations.
Further, the Court emphasized that when an arrest is made on the basis of a judicial remand order, the communication of arrest grounds through the remand report and related documents suffices:
“For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested.”
Decision
Upholding the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding:
“In the overall view of the matter more particularly having gone through the grounds of arrest, we have reached the conclusion that the requirement in terms of para 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) could be said to have been fulfilled.”
The Court clarified that the arrested individual remains entitled to seek regular bail and directed that any pending bail application be heard expeditiously.
Citation: Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7746 of 2025)
