IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1Q8fi« OF onoa RAO Between: years, Wo. D. ch ■ I?' * ^ ^ Bhavans School Mastan Naaar Shaikpet. Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad, Telangana State. ^ ’ ...Petitioner AND Secretary Home Department. A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. oSr^'' Mangaiagiri, Guntur 3. The Addl. Director General of Police First Floor, Mangalagiri, Guntur. CID, AP DGP Head Quarters, 4. The Superintendent of Police (EOW) CID A P Polir^ n Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ® 5. The Addi. Superintendent of Police, SIT, A.P., Vijayawada. 6. The Station House Officer CID p*^ a d r/i., i ■ ■ ^ uiu PS, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus praying that in the High Court may more particularly one in the seeking a) To declare the arrest of Sri p Kesireddy Raja Shekar Reddy. S/o. Kesireddy Upender Reddy as illegal arrest for not following the arrest procedure under Section 36 of BNSS. b) To declare remand of detenu vide Order dt. 22.04.2025 passed by the Honble Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, as illegal detention which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well- established legal principles and consequently set aside the Remand order dt. 22.04.2025 in Cr. No. 21/2024 of CID P.S., Mangalagiri passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada by directing to release Sri Kesireddy Raja Shekar Reddy. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to release the detenu Sri Kesireddy Raja Shekar Reddy, S/o Kesireddy Upender Reddy on bail by suspending the remand order dt. 22.04.2025 in Cr. No. 21/2024 of CID P.S., Mangalagiri passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. SUDHKAR REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/s BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010217732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10858/2025 Between: Kesireddy Upender Reddy. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The genesis of the present writ petition arises out of Crime No.21 of 2024 which was registered on 23.09.2024, under Section 420, 409 and 120-B of I.P.C in the C.I.D. police station, Mangalagiri, against unknown accused. The detenue, was arrested, on the ground that he was accused No.1 in the said crime, at 6 p.m., on 21.04.2025, in Hyderabad. The detenue was produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-lll Additional V 2 > - District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada at 5.15 p.m on 22.04.2025. The Special Judge, after perusing the record produced along with the remand report and after hearing the learned counsel for detenue had passed an order of remand, dated 22.04.2025, remanding the detenue to judicial custody under Section 187 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), till 06.05.2025, for offences under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of I.P.C and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The father of the detenue has approached this Court, by way of this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the arrest of the detenue as an illegal arrest as the procedure under Section 36 of BNSS was 2. not followed and for a further declaration that the remand order, dated 22.04.2025, passed by the Special Judge was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to well established legal principles. The 5*^ respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Sri P. Sudhakar 3. Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Bugulu Sree Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents have made their submissions. 4. Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel while reiterating the grounds raised in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ 3 Petition, raised the following grounds to assail the arrest of the detenue and the subsequent remand order. i) The detenue was arrested even before he was named as accused No.1 in the crime. The memo to include him, as accused No.1, was filed by the Investigating Officer, only on 22.04.2025, before the Special Judge, while the detenue was arrested on 21.04.2025; ii) The Memo of arrest served on the detenue does not meet the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)^ in paragraph No.48, had held as follows: “It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence: to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of (2024) 8 see 254 4 arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, 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.” The memo of arrest did not set out any of the grounds required per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; Notice, under Section 47, served on the detenue stated that the offences against him were under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of I.P.C whereas the remand report incorporated Sections 7, 7A, 8, 13(1)(b), 1392) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As all the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not set out in the notice of arrest under Section 47, as well as in the grounds of arrest, required under Section 48 of BNSS, there is violation of the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with Section 47 and 48 of BNSS. as iii) iv) The inclusion of these provisions in the remand report and of the said remand report does not meet the requirements of Section 47 and 48 of BNSS or the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. service 5 5. In reply, the learned Advocate General would contend that the requirement of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 47 and 48 of BNSS is that the arrested person is given details of the provisions of law under which he is being charged and the facts and grounds on the basis of which he was being arrested. This is to ensure that the arrested person is aware of the case made out against him so as to equip him to counter the said case before the Magistrate at the stage of remand. The learned Advocate General would submit that the grounds of arrest as well as the provisions of the law were made known to the detenue, in writing, by virtue of service of the notice of arrest under Section 47, the grounds of arrest under Section 48 and the remand report. The learned Advocate General would also submit that all the three documents were served on the detenue before arguments were heard before the Special Judge and as such, there is compliance with the requirementsof law. On the question of arraying the detenue as an accused on 6. 22.04.2025, the learned Advocate General would contend that the detenue was included as an accused, in Crime No.21 of 2024, on 19.04.2024, 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 learned advocate General would contend that it is the date on which the Investigating Officer includes the name of an accused person that would be relevant and the filing of a memo is merely an intimation to the trial Court. 6 Consideration of the nmirt- 7. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India reads as follows: 22(1)Protection against arrest and detention iin certain cases (1)No person who is arrested shall be detained i without being informed in custody as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, choice. and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his 8. Section 47 of BNSS reads thus; Section 47 BNSSI Bharatiya Naaarik Snrakoho Sanhita fBNSS)- Person arrested to be informed of right to bail. grounds of arrest and of (1) Every police officer or other person arresting communicate to him he is arrested any person without warrant shall forthwith full particulars of the offence for which other grounds for such arrest. or (2) Where a police officer other than a person accused of shall inform the person arrested that he i released on bail and that he behalf. arrests without warrant any person a non-bailable offence, he - is entitled to be may arrange for sureties on his 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)^, while interpreting these provisions, in the context of an arrest \ ^ (2024) 8 see 254 7 lE^ under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, had held in the manner extracted above. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the detenue contends that this requirement was breached as the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act were not included in the notice under Section 47 or under the grounds of arrest, under Section 48, which were served on the detenue, at the time of arrest and the inclusion of these provisions in the remand report would not be sufficient for meeting the requirements of Article 22 read with Section 47 and 48 of BNSS. 10. This Court, at an earlier occasion, had considered similar contentions and had held as follows: “Though there is an issue as to whether, the grounds of arrest are required, under Article 22 of the Constitution, to be served, in writing, at the time of arrest or can be supplied ‘as soon as possible’, the same would not arise in this case, in view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid observation indicates, that such grounds of arrest can be contained in the remand application and can be served on the arrested person. Since, the application, for remand, would have to be moved, within 24 hours of arrest, such a course of action appears to have been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and would have to be followed by this Court. In the present case, it is an admitted fact, on both sides, that the remand report had been served on the detenue before the remand order was passed by the Magistrate”. 8 11. 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 prior to the hearing of his remand application. The learned Special Judge, had specifically recorded that were all served on the detenue even the remand report had been served hearing before the Special Judge. The copy of the on the detenue prior to the commencement 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 view of the earlier judgment of this Court, it must be held that the Constitution of India as well requirements of Article 22 of the as the provisions of BNSS have been complied. 12. Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another^ had observed that the remand report would not 47 of BNSS. He relies upon the following paragraph in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana amount to service of grounds of arrest required under section and Another: 25. A contention has been raised in the written argument that the grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. This contention has been raised for the first time in written . submissions before this Court. This is not pleaded in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court. The remand report before the learned Magistrate for seeking police submit a remand ^2025 see esntine 269 9 without serving a copy thereof to the arrestee. The reason is that the Police cannot divulge the details of the investigation to the accused till the final report is filed. Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. 13. In Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another’s case neither the detenue nor his relatives or family members had been served X with any document. In such circumstances, as can be seen from the same passage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in the absence of service of the remand report, mere inclusion of grounds of arrest in the remand report would not be sufficient compliance of Article 22 of the Constitution of India or Section 47 of BNSS. In the present case, 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. Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy contends that papers were served on the detenu after the hearing in the remand application and as such, there is no compliance of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 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. in these circumstances this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of remand. T 10 14. 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, DGP Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Addl. Director General of Police, CID, AP DGP Head Quarters, First Floor, Mangalagiri, Guntur. 4. The Superintendent of Police (EOW), CID, A P Police Head Quarter, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 5. The Addl. Superintendent of Police, SIT, A.P., Vijayawada. 6. The Station House Officer, CID PS, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 7. Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, S/o. not know. Age not known. Principal Secretary to Government, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 8. One CC to M/s Bugulu Sreeteja, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT I - x. \ \ DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.10858 of 2025 S^‘ •SI //O o 0« MAY 2025 a: ml £^SPATCW^2^ 'k DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS