TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Indian Penal Code respectively (for short, the "IPC") (Now Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively (for short, the "BNS")). b. It appears from the materials on record that on 19.04.2025 the son of the appellant herein was arrayed as accused no. 1 by way of an entry in the case diary. c. The son of the appellant was arrested at around 6 P.M. from the Hyderabad Airport. At the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were supplied to him and later were also served on his father i.e. the appellant herein. d. Pursuant to the arrest, the son of the appellant was brought to Vijayawada and was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate i.e. the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada at 5.15 P.M. on 22.04.2025 i.e. within 24 hours of the arrest. d. It appears that police remand was prayed for and the same came to be granted vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases. e. The operative part of the remand order reads thus: "12. Remand report further reveals that, police have to examine several witnesses and has to apprehend several Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earlier judgment of this Court, it must be held that the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of BNSS have been complied. xxx xxx xxx 13. In Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another's case, neither the detenue nor his relatives or family members had been served 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 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s without any basis and illegal. B) Further, events post the arrest of the Petitioner's son clearly discloses the groundless basis of his arrest as also the mala fide intent behind it. In the course of his investigation post his arrest, the Petitioner's son was informed that he should make a Statement implicating the then Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh - Shri Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, for alleged illegalities in the liquor excise policy that was being investigated. Shockingly, present during his investigation were 2 'mediators'. The case of the Respondent has disclosed in the Remand Application of the next day (Second paragraph @ Page 88 of the SLP) was that the accused refused to sign on an alleged confession. It is clear from the said averments in the Remand Application that the 'mediators' were introduced to pressurize the Petitioner's son into making a 'confession' implicating the Former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh - Shri Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. The entire conspectus of facts that transpired during interrogation discloses glaring illegalities, including the presence of the 'mediators'. The fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as Section 420 IPC is concerned, the ingredients of deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement and the property delivered pursuant to such inducement are all significantly absent. The grounds of arrest therefore did not even remotely disclose how the offences alleged were made out. It is submitted that this was the case because there was no ground to arrest the Petitioner's son and his arrest was illegal and mala fide. ii. Article 22 of the Constitution requires that the grounds of arrest shall be informed to the person arrested "as soon as may be". In Paragraph 5 of the Impugned Judgment of the High Court, it is recorded that, "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." It is submitted that a remand report cannot in law be grounds of arrest contemplated under Article 22 or Section 47 of the BNSS, save perhaps when the Accused is produced in Court for remand and furnished with a Remand Application immediately on his production. Else a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the name Shri Dodda Venkat Satya Prasad. There was no sanction granted for investigation for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the Petitioner's son. Granting of Sanction is not akin to taking of cognizance by a Court where cognizance is taken of offences and not of offenders. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act prohibits any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this act where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duty. Thus under Section 17A, the sanctioning authority has to examine the case of every public servant separately to determine whether the provisions of that Section apply to him so that sanction may be granted or refused. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions (Department of Personnel and training) has on 17.09.2021 issued SOPs for the processing of cases under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Annexure P - 10 @ Page 5 in Vol 2). Clause 4.6 of the SOP mandates as under: "4.6. Separate proposals shall be made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... @ Pg13-14 of IA No.128534/2025 for Addl. Documents). A perusal of the said Grounds of Arrest would show complete compliance with the directions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 @ Para21, wherein this Hon'ble Court directed that information of grounds of arrest must be provided "in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person ... " 3.Pursuant to arrest, A1 was brought to Vijayawada and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate i.e. the Ld. Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Vijayawada at 5.15 PM on 22.04.2025 i.e. within 24 hours of arrest, thereby complying with all requirements as well as Article 22(2) of the Constitution. In the Remand Order dated ..., the Ld. Magistrate inter alia noted in para 2, that Al stated that he had not been ill-treated in custody and that he had received the Remand Report with enclosures (Pg 106 of SLP). After considering all aspects, including the nature of the allegations, the Ld. Magistrate ordered for A1 to be remanded (Remand Order @ Pg106-113 of SLP), and the same was upheld by way of the impugned order. It is humb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Satya Prasad. Approval under Section 17-A was granted on 21.04.2025 in Vijayawada. Upon reaching Vijayawada, on 22.04.2025, A1 was served with the Arrest Memo containing the above mentioned sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the same was received by A1 and is in case diary. 9.Al was only an "IT Advisor" to the Government of Andhra Pradesh who was running his business in Hyderabad at the relevant time. The scope of the Petitioner's duties as an "IT Advisor" had no relation at all to the excise/liquor policy, as has been repeatedly averred by the Petitioner himself (Pg G & Pg 123of SLP). Earlier, in his Reply to a Notice u/sec 179 BNSS, A1 himself clearly stated that " .. based on publicly available information, I understand that the case pertains to an excise- related matter in Andhra Pradesh. However, I am unable to ascertain any direct or indirect link in the case from my end ... " 10.It is submitted that the approval under Section 17A is person- specific (as admitted by the Petitioner himself, Ground F @ Pg123 of the SLP), required when the alleged offence is "relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under subclauses (a) and (b) of clause (7). (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. (6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose. (7) Parliament may by law prescribe- *(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4); ** (b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence; (c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government; or (d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or (e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or (f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or (g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or (h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person." 14. We shall now look into the grounds of arrest which were provided to the appellant's son in writing at the time of his arrest and also to the appellant as the father of the person arrested. The same reads thus: "GROUNDS OF ARREST IN RESPECT OF SRI KESSIREDDY RAJA SHEKHAR REDDY (A1) IN CR. NO. 21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 120(B) IPC OF CID P.S. MANGALAGIRI This is a case of Conspiracy, Cheating, Criminal breach of trust, Corruption and Money Laundering which caused huge wrongful loss to the state exchequer/Distilleries and wrongful gain to influential individuals/ Few Distilleries/ Few Suppliers to a tune of more than Rs. 3200 Crores, that occurred between October 2019 and March 2024 in AP State Beverages Corporation Limited, Vijayawada and reported to CID PS on 23-09-2024 at 22-00 hrs. The complainant Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, I.A.S., Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No. Rev-01/CPE/20/2024-VIG-IV, Dated: 20.09.2024, lodged a complaint based on the enquiry report with title "Report on Liquor Procurement and Market Manipulati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end the same to P.V. Mithun Reddy and others. 6. Further, you have organized entire business of Leela brand in AP by appointing your henchman Varun as head of operations as a part of the conspiracy. 7. You invested the crime proceeds in various real estate, Infra, Entertainment, chemical and mobility companies. 8. As a part of the conspiracy, you caused lot of wrongful loss to the APSBCL and to the State Exchequer. 9. You have been absconding and not appearing before the Investigation officer in response to notices U/s 179 BNSS. On the above grounds and as the investigation is not yet completed, your arrest is necessary for further investigation of the case. You are hereby arrested. Sd/- 21/4/25 I/c Investigating Officer, Dy. Supdt. Of Police SIT, Vijaywada." 15. The pathbreaking judgment of this Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 serves as a pivotal reference point in Indian jurisprudence regarding the rights of individuals upon arrest. The judgment in Vihan Kumar (supra) has profound implications for the enforcement of Article 22 of the Constitution acr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects stated above. 14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22. 17. Another argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that even if the appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article 22, the first respondent can arrest him again. At this stage, it is not necessary to decide the issue. 18. In the present case, 1 st respondent relied upon an entry in the case diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. For the reasons which will follow hereafter, we are rejecting the argument made by the 1st respondent. If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. Therefore, in a given case, even assuming that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary, there must be a contemporaneo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established." (Emphasis sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, SO as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal." (Emphasis supplied) 18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan Kumar (supra): a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition. b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1). d) If the grounds of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eyewash. 22. In the case of State of Bombay v. Atma Ram reported in 1951 SCC 43 : AIR 1951 SC 157 (C), it was held by this Court that, the test is whether the communication of the grounds of arrest is sufficient to enable the detained person to make a representation at the earliest opportunity. 23. Similarly in the case of Magan Lal Jivabhai, in re, AIR 1951 Bom 33(D), it was held that, the only possible and reasonable construction that can be put upon the language of Article 22(6) is that the detaining authority, while furnishing grounds of detention, is required to state the facts on account of which he is satisfied that the detention is necessary in the interest of the security of the State, maintenance, of public order, etc. 24. The only privilege a detaining authority can claim against the disclosure of facts is on the grounds of public interest. If no facts at all leading to the detention of a detenu are to be mentioned in the grounds which are to be furnished to him, then obviously the intention underlying the enactment of Article 22(6) would be frustrated. 25. In both the cases referred to above, the persons had been detained under the provisions of Preventive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... informed of the cause of his arrest. In the United States the accused has the constitutional right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"; see 6th Amendment to the American Constitution. In Hooper v. Lane, (1857) 6 HLC 443 : 10 ER 1368 (G), one of the reasons for the rule was said to be that the person arrested should know whether he is or is not bound to submit to the arrest. In Christie v. Leachinsky reported in (1947) AC 573 Lord Simonds observed at page 591 as thus: "Putting first things first, I would say that it is the right of every citizen to be free from arrest unless there is in some other citizen, whether a constable or not, the right to arrest him. And I would say next that it is the corollary of the right of every citizen to be thus free from arrest that he should be entitled to resist arrest unless that arrest is lawful. How can these rights be reconciled with the proposition that he may be arrested without knowing why he is arrested? Blind, unquestioning obedience is the law of tyrants and of slaves: it does not yet flourish on English soil". 31. Professor Glanvile L. Williams in his article "Requisites of a Valid Arrest" in (1954) Cr....