New Delhi, May 24 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the arrest of K. Rajasekhar Reddy, former IT advisor to ex-Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, in the alleged ₹3,200 crore liquor scam in the state.
A bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that Reddy’s arrest was carried out in line with constitutional provisions and did not infringe upon Article 22 or the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
“Authorities are not required to furnish exhaustive details of the offence at the time of arrest. What’s essential is that the information must be adequate for the arrested individual to grasp the nature of the accusation,” the bench observed while rejecting the appeal.
“We find no substance in the petition. The appeal stands dismissed.”
Reddy was taken into custody in April 2025 at Hyderabad airport by the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the remand order, he was a central figure in an extensive kickback-linked liquor trade operation in the state.
Challenging his detention, Reddy had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court through a habeas corpus petition. The High Court, however, upheld the arrest on May 8, affirming that due process had been followed. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Appearing for Reddy, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani argued that the arrest was orchestrated with malice. He noted that Reddy’s name was not mentioned in the original FIR and was inserted later through a case diary entry, just two days before the arrest.
He further contended that Reddy had willingly agreed to appear before the CID, under the impression that he was being called only as a witness under Section 179 of the BNSS.
Jethmalani also alleged that the arrest grounds lacked specificity and failed to meet the standards laid out in Article 22 and Section 47 of the BNSS. Additionally, he contested the invocation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pointing out the absence of a valid sanction under Section 17A in Reddy’s case.
Countering the claims, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State, defended the arrest procedure, asserting that Reddy was given detailed reasons for his arrest both at the time of his detention and during the remand hearing. He emphasised that all procedural safeguards, including the production before a magistrate within 24 hours, had been observed.
After reviewing the submissions, the top court endorsed the High Court’s view, stating that the reasons provided for the arrest were sufficient and not superficial.
“On examining the grounds of arrest handed over to the appellant’s son at the time of the arrest, we do not find them to be vague or cosmetic. They were meaningful and provided a clear basis for the arrest,” the court noted.
The judgment distinguished the matter from Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, stating that, unlike in that case, Reddy had been properly informed of the grounds of arrest and served the remand report in a timely manner.
While reaffirming that informing an arrested person of the reasons for their detention is a constitutional imperative under Article 22(1), the court held that this obligation had been met in the present case.
Though the appeal was dismissed, the court clarified that Reddy retains the right to apply for regular bail and directed that any such bail plea pending before the lower courts be considered without undue delay.
UNI SNG PRS