The Supreme Court addressed the legality of arrest and compliance with constitutional mandates under Article 22, specifically concerning the prompt furnishing of grounds for arrest. The judgment deliberated on the application of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, affirming adherence to due process in arrest procedures.
Facts Of The Case:
This appeal originated from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of alleged illegal arrest and unlawful detention of Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, the appellant’s son. He was arrested by the CID in connection with offenses purportedly committed under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The core contention in the case revolved around whether the authorities had adequately and promptly furnished the grounds for arrest to Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, as mandated by Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court had previously dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the requirement for providing grounds of arrest had been fulfilled. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no merit in the appeal, and consequently dismissed it. The Court further clarified that the arrested person retained the right to apply for regular bail before the competent court.
Procedural History:
This case originated when the appellant filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 10858 of 2025, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The petition sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the appellant’s son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, was illegally arrested and unlawfully detained by the CID. On May 8, 2025, the High Court dismissed this writ petition. Subsequently, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court of India, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025, which arose from SLP (CRL.) No. 7746 of 2025, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, found no merit in the appeal and consequently dismissed it, thereby affirming the High Court’s judgment. A connected petition, SLP (CRL.) No. 5691 of 2025, was also considered, with the legal issues therein deemed academic given the primary appeal’s outcome.
READ ALSO : Supreme Court Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court, having reviewed the grounds of arrest presented, concurred with the High Court’s finding that the requirement in terms of paragraph 21(b) as established in Vihaan Kumar (supra) was fulfilled. The Court observed that the arrested individual, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, retains the liberty to seek regular bail from the competent court. Furthermore, it directed that any pending bail applications should be expedited and adjudicated strictly according to legal principles governing bail grants. The Court also reiterated the importance of informing an arrested person not merely of the applicable law, but specifically of the acts committed for which they face trial, referencing Vimal Kishore Mehrotra (supra). Legal issues in connected petitions were deemed academic given the primary judgment, though the questions of law were left open
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, finding no merit in the appeal, ultimately dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025. The Court’s final judgment clarified that the arrested individual, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, who remained in judicial custody, retained the right to apply for regular bail before the competent court. Furthermore, the Court directed that any pending regular bail applications should be taken up for hearing and decided promptly in accordance with established legal principles governing the grant of bail. All other pending applications were also disposed of. While a connected petition (SLP (CRL.) No. 5691 of 2025) raised additional legal issues, these were deemed academic in light of the primary judgment, with the question of law explicitly kept open for future consideration.
Case Details:
Case Title: KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY Versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. Citation: 2025 INSC 768 Criminal Appeal No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2808 OF 2025 Date Of Judgement: 2025 Judges/Justice Name: J.B. PARDIWALA
Download The Judgement Here