Court Emphasizes Mandatory Written Communication of Grounds for Arrest Under Article 22(1) and BNSS 2023; Medical Examination Prior to Arrest Deemed Illegal
In a significant judgment dated August 13, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela, quashed the arrest and remand of Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy (Accused No. 4) and another in connection with Crime No. 11 of 2026, registered by the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, involving allegations of corruption and manipulation in the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL).
The petitioners challenged the legality of their arrest and remand ordered by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, alleging that the State authorities violated the mandatory procedures prescribed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which correspond to Section 50 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Key Findings and Legal Principles:
1. Mandatory Written Communication of Grounds of Arrest:
The Court reiterated the well-settled position that under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, no person arrested shall be detained without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This communication must be in writing, in a language understood by the arrestee, and provided at the earliest opportunity — ideally at the time of arrest or at least two hours prior to production before a Magistrate for remand proceedings. Failure to comply renders the arrest and remand illegal.
2. Medical Examination Post-Arrest Only:
Section 53 of the BNSS mandates that medical examination of the arrested person must occur soon after the arrest is made, not before. The Court found that in this case, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination prior to formal arrest, which contravenes statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards.
3. Proper Procedure for Production of Prisoners:
The Court observed that Section 305 of BNSS requires the officer-in-charge of the prison to be responsible for the production of prisoners before the Court. Delegation of this duty to an escort party (police personnel) as done in this case was contrary to law and rendered the order invalid.
4. Irregularities in Arrest and Remand Process:
The Court held that the petitioner was taken into custody from Central Prison, Chanchalguda, at 9:35 a.m. on July 20, 2026, but was only formally arrested in Court at 4:20 p.m. on the same day. The grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing at or before arrest but purportedly provided during remand proceedings, violating the constitutional mandate.
5. Prejudice to the Accused:
The petitioner specifically denied receiving the grounds of arrest in writing. The Court noted that non-furnishing of adequate grounds prejudices the accused’s ability to defend and seek bail, thus violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.
6. Judicial Review of Arrest Legality:
The Court emphasized that judicial review of arrest and remand orders is essential to safeguard fundamental rights and prevent arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.
7. No Necessity to Address Merits of the Case at Bail Stage:
The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the allegations, confining itself to the procedural and constitutional violations.
Outcome:
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order of arrest and remand of the petitioner and directed the respondents to release him forthwith. The Court clarified that this order does not prevent the State from continuing investigation or re-arresting if lawful grounds exist, provided procedures are strictly followed.
The judgment also set aside the arrest and remand of another accused (Accused No. 1) in the same case on similar grounds.
Significance:
This judgment reinforces the sanctity of constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22(1), especially the right to be informed of grounds of arrest in writing and in a language understood by the accused. It underscores that deviations from prescribed arrest procedures and premature medical examinations undermine fundamental rights and vitiate the legality of arrest and remand orders.
The Court’s detailed analysis draws extensively from recent Supreme Court precedents including Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), Ahmed Mansoor v. State (2025), and Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI (2024), affirming the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards during arrest.
Bottom Line :
Arrest procedures under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 53 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) are mandatory, and any deviation renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal - Non-furnishing of adequate grounds for arrest results in prejudice to the accused and violates fundamental rights.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Sections 35, 36, 40, 43(1), 47, 48, 51, 53, 302, 305 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP) : Law Finder Doc id # 2964671
