The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely reading out the remand report, case record, order of arrest and grounds of arrest to an accused at the time of production before the Special Judge does not amount to sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 199]

The Court made the observation while holding the arrest and consequential remand unsustainable in the case of former IT Advisor to the previous YSRCP government, Kesireddy Rajasekhar Reddy alias Raj Kesireddy, in connection with the alleged manipulation of the liquor transportation tender process of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL).

At the outset, the Court noted that Article 22(1) requires an arrested person to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest and guarantees the right to legal representation. Read with Article 21, the provision protects the personal liberty of an arrested person and requires strict compliance.

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela examined whether the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest had been complied with. The Court observed:

“From the above observations of the learned Special Judge, this Court construes that the arrest of the petitioner/accused No.4, was made only at 04:20 P.M. in the Court and the accused No.4 received the copies of the case record and was informed about the grounds of arrest, which cannot be understood as legitimate and in consonance with the law of the land.
In view of the above precedents, which are constitutional guardrails, it can be held, without any hesitation that the order of the Special Judge that the detailed remand report/case record, the order of arrest, and the grounds of arrest contained in the remand order were read over to the petitioner does not amount to sufficient compliance and it totally violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which attains high constitutional and legal significance.”

The petitions were filed by Raj Kesireddy and former Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) Managing Director Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy, challenging their arrest and remand in connection with the alleged liquor transportation scam.

Raj Kesireddy was already in judicial custody in another case when the investigating agency sought his production in the present case. He was taken from prison at around 9:35 a.m., brought to Vijayawada at about 3 p.m., and produced before the Special Court. The remand report was served during the hearing at approximately 4:20 p.m.

The petitioners contended that their arrest pursuant to production warrants was illegal as the written grounds of arrest were not furnished either at the time of arrest or sufficiently before their production, in violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. They also alleged that the subsequent case was instituted to frustrate their earlier bail and perpetuate their custody.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were brought before the Special Court pursuant to judicial production orders and that the remand papers, including the grounds of arrest, were furnished before the remand proceedings. The State also relied upon the fact that the detailed remand report and case papers had been furnished upon arrival before the judicial remand enquiry.

Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Meaningfully Communicated

Referring to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, the High Court emphasised that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, meaningfully and in a language understood by the arrested person.

Where written communication is not practicable immediately, the grounds may initially be conveyed orally, but the written grounds must thereafter be supplied within the permissible period and, in the ordinary course, at least two hours before production for remand, subject to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Court explained that the purpose of this safeguard is to enable the arrested person to understand the basis of the arrest, consult legal counsel and effectively oppose custody. It also distinguished the “grounds of arrest” from general “reasons for arrest”, holding that the former must contain the basic facts and material specific to the accused that necessitated the arrest.

The Court held that failure to comply with this constitutional safeguard renders the arrest and consequential remand illegal, while clarifying that such illegality does not affect the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet or continuation of the trial.

The High Court further held that communicating the grounds for the first time during remand proceedings, including by reading over the relevant papers in Court, does not provide the accused with the meaningful and timely opportunity contemplated under Article 22(1). Explanation of the grounds by the Court at the remand stage cannot substitute furnishing the written grounds of arrest to the accused.

Medical Examination Before Arrest

The High Court also examined the circumstances of Raj Kesireddy's production before the Special Court. It noted that he was taken into custody and arrested in Court, but was medically examined before the arrest, contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 53 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court observed that Section 53 requires the arrested person to be medically examined soon after the arrest is made, and noted that the medical examination in the present case had taken place before the arrest.

The Court also considered the circumstances concerning the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and the absence of allegations of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It observed:

“Courts are duty-bound to ensure that investigative powers are exercised to advance the cause of justice and not in a manner that results in avoidable or disproportionate deprivation of liberty.”

Considering the cumulative circumstances, the Court held that the remand order concerning Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy could not be sustained. It quashed the order, directed his release and clarified that the investigation could continue, subject to his cooperation and compliance with the applicable conditions.

The Court held that Donthireddy Vasudeva Reddy, former Managing Director of APSBCL, stood on the same footing. His remand order was also quashed, and his release was directed, subject to his cooperation with the investigation and compliance with the applicable conditions.

Case Title: Kessireddy Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. with connected case

Case No.: Criminal Petition Nos. 6456, 6463 and 6467 of 2026.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 199

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha; Ms. Lis Mathew; and Mr. P. Gowtham, learned counsel, appearing for Mr. V. Sai Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. J. Sarath Chandra, learned Special Counsel for the SIT.

Click Here To Read/Download Order