Mentioning Grounds Of Arrest In Remand Report Without Service To Arrestee Not Valid Communication: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely mentioning grounds of arrest in the remand report, without serving it to arrestee before remand proceedings, does amount to valid communication of  grounds of arrest. 

In doing so the court said that service of remand report to the arrestees containing the grounds of arrest is valid communication, even if notices under Sections 47(Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail) & 48 (Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc) of BNSS did not contain the grounds of arrest.

The court was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition claiming that the arrest of one Tanigadapa Prasad and one Tungala Rukhmini (the detenues) as also the remand order  dated 09.04.2026 passed by magistrate court is illegal and the detenues be set free. 

The petitioner had been arrested under Section 308(5), Section 127(1), Section 3(5) BNS which lay out punishment for putting fear of death or grievous hurt on another person in the order of committing extortion, wrongful confinement and criminal act done with common intention, respectively.  The petitioner had challenged the arrest on the ground that they had not been informed of the grounds of arrest, and mentioning the same in the remand report is not compliance.

It was argued that the remand report was in English language, whereas the communication of the grounds of arrest should be in the language the arrestee understands

A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli in its order observed:

"Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India i.e., communication of the ground of arrest to the arrestee is well settled. That is a mandatory constitutional safeguard which also aims to protecting the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the personal liberty of an individual. Article 22(1) is itself a fundamental right. The communication of the grounds of arrest should be made at the time of arrest or as soon as after arrest, in writing. It may be informed orally at the time of arrest but written communication should be made within a reasonable time of arrest and in any case atleast two hours prior to the production of the arrestee for remand before the Magistrate. The Communication must be in writing and be in the language the arrestee understands". 

The court noted that in the present case the counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the remand report was served to the detenues and that it was so served prior to the proceedings of remand. It noted that the counsel did not dispute that the remand report contained the grounds of arrest. 

The bench referred Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana, relied on by the petitioner, wherein Supreme Court had held that mentioning of the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance. This, the bench observed, was not the situation in the present case. 

It said:

“In our view, Vihaan Kumar (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. The reason is that, the remand report was served in the present case. 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 with the mandatory requirement of communication of the grounds of arrest, as the requirement is 'communication of the grounds of arrest' and not mere mentioning in the remand report. So, where the grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the remand report but not served to the arrestees, there would be no communication of those grounds. 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".

The bench observed that in the present case there is no dispute that the remand report containing the grounds of arrest was served on the arrestees. It further said that though the remand report does not contain 'Heading of Ground of Arrest' but on perusal of the same, the necessary details have been set out with respect to both the detenues.

"We are therefore of the view that the service of the remand report to the arrestees, containing the grounds of arrest is communication of the grounds of arrest to the arrestees even if the notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS did not contain the grounds of arrest," the court added. 

It observed that no plea was raised in the writ petition regarding the claim that the remand report was in English language which the petitioners did not understand.

It was held that there is no violation of Article 22(1) or Article 21, as the remand report containing grounds of arrest had been duly served.

The plea was dismissed. 

Case Title: Bolla Kiran v The State Of Andhra Pradesh

WRIT PETITION NO: 9972/2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. J. Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader

Click Here To Read/Download Order