LexKASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 105 : 2025 INSC 768 Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025) 23 May 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, as alleged. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.22 – When not violated – Appellant filed writ petition before High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his son was illegally arrested by CID as appropriate grounds for arrest were not furnished at the time of arrest and thus, the arrest was violative of Art.22 – Writ petition dismissed – Sustainability: Held: If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest – If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested – If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial – In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence – He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough – The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands – The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved – Appellant’s son was arrested for specific offences as mentioned in the grounds of arrest – The grounds of arrest show that the requirement in terms of para 21(b) as laid * Author 106 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports down in Vihaan Kumar’s case is fulfilled – No merit in this appeal – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.47, 48, 35 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.41(1). [Paras 25, 36] Constitution of India – Art. 22 – Judgment of Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another – Constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest and detention – Rights of individuals upon arrest – Principles of law explained in Vihaan Kumar, enumerated. [Paras 15, 18] Case Law Cited Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269; State of Bombay v. Atma Ram [1951] 1 SCR 167 : (1951) SCC 43 : AIR 1951 SC 157 (C) – relied on. Magan Lal Jivabhai, in re, AIR 1951 Bom 33(D); Vimal Kishore Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 All 56 – referred to. Hooper v. Lane (1857) 6 HLC 443 : 10 ER 1368 (G); Christie v. Leachinsky (1947) AC 573; McNabb v. United States of America (1943) 318 US 332 (H); United States v. Cruikshank (1876) 92 US 542 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Article 22 of the Constitution of India; Grounds of arrest; Arrested on a warrant; Arrested without a warrant; Appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest; At the time of arrest; Writ of habeas corpus; Vihaan Kumar case; Information of the grounds of arrest; Sufficient knowledge of the basic facts; Arrest by CID. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2025 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP No. 10858 of 2025 With SLP (CRL.) No. 5691 of 2025 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 107 Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Mahesh Jethmalani, Navin Pahwa, Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Sr. Advs., Ramesh Allanki, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Shriharsha Peechara, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Alabhya Dhamija, Shreevardhan Dhoot, M. Bala Krishna, T. Vijaybhaskar Reddy, Yash Gupta, Krishna Kumar Singh, Ms. Serena Jethmalani, Ajay Awasthi, Ms. Mugdha Pande, Vaibhav Thaledi, Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Krishna Kumar Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advs., Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Ms. Rajni Gupta. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.