KESSIREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC

“BAIL OR JAIL” [(1978) 1 SCC 240]). (As per Hon‘ble Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer Heard, - - - - - Mr.Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.6456 and 6467 of 2026, Ms.Lis Mathew, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.Gowtham, learned counsel, assisted by Mr.V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6463 of 2026, and Mr.B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State/SIT.

The Criminal Petition No.6456 of 2026 is filed calling for the records in the Order, dated 20.07.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in Crime No.11 of 2026, on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, ordering remand of the petitioner/accused No.4 till 03.08.2026 and declare the arrest made on 20.07.2026 as illegal and to quash and set aside the Order, dated

20.07.2026, in Crime No.11 of 2026, inter alia to direct the respondents to forthwith release the petitioner and set him at liberty insofar as Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, is concerned.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Nikhil Goel, reproduced conspectus of facts leading to the registration of F.I.R.No.11 of 2026 and the consequential order, dated 20.07.2026, to enlighten: 12 GTK, J Crl.P.Nos.6456, 6463 & 6467 of 2026 i. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Nikhil Goel, commenced his arguments, stating that, on 23.09.2024, the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered F.I.R.No.21 of 2024 (Liquor Scam), alleging manipulation of the Excise Policy, brand allocations, and procurement process of the Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited (APSBCL) during 2019–2024, and collection of kickbacks of about Rs.3,500 crores. On 21.04.2025, the petitioner (Accused No. 4) was arrested in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 as treating the F.I.R.No.21 of 2024 as predicate offence, registers ECIR.No.33 of 2025. Thereafter, on 10.02.2026, while the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R.No.21 of 2024, the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, registered F.I.R.No.11 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 111, 212, 217, and 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), alleging manipulation of liquor transportation tender process of the very same APSBCL in the same period on substantially the same allegations against the petitioner. ii.

12.04.2026. As the petitioner was apprehending arrest, Criminal Petition No.3077 of 2026 was filed before this Court on 15.04.2026. Thereafter, on

17.04.2026, the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were added in the F.I.R. No.11 of 2026 by way of a Memo. Thereafter, on 04.05.2026, when this Court heard Criminal Petition No.3077 of 2026 filed for anticipatory bail, the learned Special Public Prosecutor stated that the crime was registered on

10.02.2026 and as the investigation is at a nascent stage; had the authorities intended to arrest the petitioner, they could have already done so. iv. Mr.Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel, stresses at this point that on the assurance given by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Agency and cooperate with the investigation, and the matter stood posted after Summer Vacation, i.e., on 24.06.2026. Pursuant to the order, dated

04.05.2026, passed by this Court, the petitioner again appeared before the Investigating Officer on 06.05.2026 and, thereafter, continued to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperated with the investigation so conducted and there was no complaint by the investigating team that the petitioner is not cooperating or absconding or interfering with the witnesses or tampering with the records. On 11.06.2026, the Enforcement Directorate arrested the petitioner in ECIR/HYZO/17/2026, which was registered on the basis of F.I.R. No.11 of 2026, while the petitioner was in the judicial custody in the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. v. Mr.Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that, on 10.07.2026, during the pendency of Criminal Petition No.3077 of 2026 filed for anticipatory bail, the State filed Crl.M.P.No.1513 of 2026 under Section 14 GTK, J Crl.P.Nos.6456, 6463 & 6467 of 2026 267 of Cr.P.C./Section 302 of BNSS, before the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, seeking a P.T. warrant for production of the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No.11 of 2026, without disclosing the fact that the anticipatory bail petition was pending before this Court. vi. The application which was filed for issuance of a P.T. warrant for production of the petitioner has come up before the learned Special Judge on

14.07.2026, wherein the application was allowed, directing the production of the petitioner on 20.07.2026 by way of a Common Order. On 20.07.2026, in pursuance of the execution of the P.T. warrant, the petitioner was arrested and remanded. This statement was emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel that, at 09:35 a.m., the petitioner was taken into custody from the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and at about 03:00 p.m., brought the petitioner to Vijayawada, and at about 04:20 p.m., remand report was served on the petitioner during the hearing. He would submit that no written grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner at any point of time, either at the time of arrest or at least two hours prior to his production before the jurisdictional Court. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the action of the State is illegal and impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and also the provisions enunciated as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023. vii. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, before issuing the remand report and arresting the petitioner in the Court at 04:20 p.m., the petitioner was taken for medical examination. He would submit that this fact is not denied by the State and indeed emphatically admitted in the counter. He would further submit that, without entering into the other merits of the case as raised in the grounds appended to the petition, he is confining his submissions 15 GTK, J Crl.P.Nos.6456, 6463 & 6467 of 2026 only to the very action of the State/Special Investigation Team (SIT), in arresting the petitioner at 04:20 p.m. in the Court and not serving the remand report as per the procedure prescribed under BNSS/Cr.P.C., and ipso facto in the teeth of the rulings of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. viii. This Court, taking note of the strong submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the merits of the case need not be ventured into, confines its consideration only to the legal issue raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. ix. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Nikhil Goel, would randomly envisage this Court to the grounds appended to the petition that the purported arrest of the petitioner, on 20.07.2026, without furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing, is in direct violation of Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS (50 of Cr.P.C.). To that, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1 , wherein it was held that

the constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes and that the grounds must be communicated in writing in the language of arrestee understands and in any case at least 2 hours prior to the production of remand

. He further continues to argue that in a case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be set at liberty. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, at paragraph 66, held as follows: ―66. In conclusion, it is held that:

66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); 1 (2026) 1 SCC 500 16 GTK, J Crl.P.Nos.6456, 6463 & 6467 of 2026

66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;

66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.

66.

In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free. x. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others2, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3 and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another4. xi. Lucidly unfolding legal atrocities committed by Investigating Agency, while arresting the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel would state that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner in writing and the burden of proof shifted upon the police to prove the contrary and the same can only be done by producing cogent and contemporaneous evidence to the effect that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner at the time of arrest. In support of the said contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (supra 4). xii. Learned Senior Counsel would further argue that the impugned order, dated 20.07.2026, is vitiated in law and that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and received copies thereof, which was denied by the petitioner specifically and the very order passed by the Court below is totally