The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that serving a copy of the remand report containing the grounds of arrest to an arrestee before the commencement of remand proceedings fulfills the mandatory requirement of communication under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli, clarified that while the grounds must be communicated in writing, a formal heading of “grounds of arrest” is not strictly necessary as long as the essential details of the case are provided to the arrestee.
Background
The court was hearing a Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Bolla Kiran, seeking the release of two detenues, Tanigadapa Prasad (A1) and Tungala Rukhmini (A2). The detenues were arrested by the Mylavaram Police and remanded to judicial custody on April 9, 2026, for offences punishable under Sections 308(5) and 127(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The petitioner challenged the arrest and subsequent remand as illegal, primarily on the ground that the detenues were not communicated the grounds of their arrest in writing. It was argued that the notices issued under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS were mere arrest intimations lacking detailed grounds.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgments in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025). He contended that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands, at least two hours prior to production before a Magistrate. He specifically cited Vihaan Kumar to argue that mentioning grounds in a remand report does not constitute compliance with Article 22(1). Furthermore, he briefly suggested that the remand report was in English, while the detenues required communication in their understood language.
Counsel for the Respondents: The Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State did not dispute the legal requirement to communicate grounds. However, he argued that in this specific case, the remand report—which contained the necessary grounds of arrest—was served on the detenues prior to the remand hearing. He relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decisions in Pappula Chalama Reddy and Kesireddy Upender Reddy, asserting that such service satisfies the constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Court’s Analysis
The court framed the core issue as whether the remand order was illegal due to the alleged non-communication of the grounds of arrest.
1. Mandatory Nature of Article 22(1): The court reaffirmed that Article 22(1) is a mandatory constitutional safeguard and a fundamental right. Referring to Vihaan Kumar, the court noted:
“The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)… Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused… and it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.”
2. Distinction Regarding Remand Reports: The court addressed the petitioner’s reliance on Vihaan Kumar, where the Supreme Court had observed that “mentioning of the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance.” The High Court clarified that in Vihaan Kumar, the police had submitted the report to the Magistrate without serving a copy to the arrestee.
The Bench observed:
“Mere mentioning of the grounds of arrest in the remand report, without serving it to the arrestee before the remand proceedings, would not be a compliance… Mere mentioning of the grounds of arrest in the remand report by itself would not be the compliance of the mandatory requirement unless there is communication that is service of the remand report on the arrestee.”
3. Content vs. Form: The court noted that although the remand report (Annexure P8) did not have a specific “Heading of Ground of Arrest,” it did contain the necessary details regarding the case against both detenues. Referring to its earlier decision in Pappula Chalama Reddy, the court stated:
“A formal heading of ‘Grounds of Defence’ [Arrest] may not be necessary as long as the necessary details are set out.”
4. Language of Communication: Regarding the counsel’s oral submission that the report was in English, the Bench noted that no such factual foundation or pleading was raised in the Writ Petition. Consequently, the court refused to presume that the detenues did not understand the language of the report.
Decision
The High Court concluded that since the remand report containing the grounds of arrest was served on the arrestees before the remand proceedings, there was no violation of Article 22(1) or Article 21 of the Constitution. Finding no merit in the challenge to the remand order, the court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Bolla Kiran v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & 5 others
Case No.: Writ Petition No: 9972/2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice Balaji Medamalli
Date: April 23, 2026
