Telangana High Court
Sri Kandadi Madhusudhan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3964 of 2026
DATE: 31.03.2026
Between :
Sri Kandadi Madhusudhan Reddy
....Petitioner/Accused Officer
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor,
Represented by the Anti Corruption Bureau,
CIU, Hyderabad.
....Respondent
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, (for short, 'learned Special Judge') in SR. No.156 of 2026 in Crime No.01/RCA-ACB-CIU/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to declare his arrest as illegal, in violation of Sections 35, 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Investigation Unit, ACB, Hyderabad, after obtaining authorization from the Joint director, 2 Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 22.01.2025 to register the case and to investigate against the petitioner that while the petitioner was in service, he acquired assets by illicit means and enriched himself during his tenure in office. The petitioner, a public servant working as a Joint Sub-Registrar, is implicated in Crime No.01/RCB-ACB-CIU/2026 registered by the ACB officials for the alleged offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was apprehended on 23.01.2026 and he was produced before the learned Special Judge and remanded to judicial custody through docket order dated 22.01.2025 till 06.02.2026 and the petitioner filed application vide S.R.No.156 of 2026 seeking to declare his arrest is illegal on the ground that the same is in violation of Sections 35, 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Special Judge, by the impugned order, dated 09.02.2026, proceeded to regularize the arrest and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody.
3. Heard Mr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner :
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer, without mentioning the grounds of arrest, took the petitioner into custody and 3 the same is a gross violation of the Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, which constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The Investigating Officer ought to have give reasons and specified the grounds of arrest either to the petitioner or to his family members.
4.2. He further submitted that in proceedings dated 23.01.2026 issued under Section 47 of the BNSS to the petitioner, or the proceedings under Section 48 of the BNSS, which was served to the wife of the petitioner on 23.01.2026, the Investigating Officer did not mention the grounds or reasons for the arrest of the petitioner and only referred the provisions of the offences, which is a gross violation of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. In spite of the same, the learned Special Judge, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, erroneously remanded the petitioner to judicial custody and rejected the application filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge is liable to be quashed.
4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1; and 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 4
2. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another 2
5. Submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor :
5.1. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer, after following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the BNSS, registered a case against the petitioner on 22.01.2026 and searches were conducted, which revealed that the petitioner possessed disproportionate assets worth approximately more than Rs.5 Crores. At the time of conducting search at the petitioner's premises, the petitioner, his wife and other family members were present and search operation was conducted in their presence. 5.2. The Investigating Officer apprehended on 23.01.2026 the petitioner by complying with the provisions under Section 35 of the BNSS, by informing him of the grounds of arrest and also informing his wife about the arrest, as mandated under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS respectively. The petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge on the very same day i.e., 23.01.2026. The learned Special Judge after examining the remand report, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody from 23.01.2026 to 06.02.2026, vide Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2026 dated 23.01.2026. The learned Special Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking to declare his arrest as illegal, in violation of Sections 35, 47 and 48 of the BNSS and 2 (2026) 1 SCC 500 5 Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, vide S.R.No.156 of 2026 on 09.02.2026 by giving cogent reasons.
5.3. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody from 23.01.2026 till 06.02.2026 and thereafter extended the judicial remand. However, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition without questioning the subsequent remand order, though the earlier remand order dated 23.01.2026 is no longer existence.
5.4. The petitioner filed the application vide Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2026 for grant of bail and the same was dismissed on 12.03.2026. Thereafter, the filed application vide Crl.M.P.No.42 of 2026 seeking interim bail for 15 days and the learned Special Judge granted interim bail from 12.03.2026 till 21.03.2026. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2026 seeking regular bail and the said application is pending before the learned Special Judge. The petitioner, by suppressing the above said facts, filed the present criminal petition and he has approached this Court with unclean hands. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis :
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that based on credible information, the respondent, after obtaining 6 necessary permission from the Joint Director, CIU, ACB, TG, Hyderabad, vide Proceeding No.01/RCA-CIU-JD(CIU)/2026 dated 22.01.2026, authorized the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CIU, ACB, Hyderabad, to register a case under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the petitioner, and the case was entrusted to him for further investigation. Pursuant to the same, Crime No.01/RCA-CIU-ACB/2026 was registered for the aforesaid offence.
7. The record further reveals that subsequent registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer obtained search warrants as required under Section 96 of the BNSS from the Court and after securing the mediators, conducted searches on 23.01.2026 under Section 185 of the BNSS at various places, including the residential house of the petitioner.
The search operation was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, his wife and other family members. The Investigating Officer found that the petitioner had acquired disproportionate assets to the extent of approximately Rs.5,00,21,494/-, for which the petitioner failed to explain satisfactorily about the value of the properties/pecuniary resources acquired by him and also there is an allegation that the petitioner during the course of search/investigation, he tried to divert the investigation process by making false statements, even when confronted with the evidence.
7
8. The record also reveals that during the course of the search, the inventory proceedings relating to major evidence were videographed, including the introduction of the ACB officials to the petitioner and his family members, and the search and seizure of gold, documents, electronic gadgets, and other items from the petitioner's residence. After completion of the inventory proceedings, the signatures of the mediators, search team and the petitioner were obtained. The said proceedings were also videographed and hash values of all the videos were generated.
9. The record further reveals that the Investigating Officer issued proceedings under Section 47 of the BNSS to the petitioner on 23.01.2026, wherein it is mentioned that his arrest was effected in respect of Crime No.01/RCA-ACB-CIU/2026, which was registered for the offence under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and the said offence is a non-bailable offence. Similarly, the Investigating Officer issued proceedings under Section 48 of the BNSS and the same was served on the wife of the petitioner on 23.01.2026 and her signature was obtained. The record further reveals that the petitioner was apprehended on 23.01.2026 and he was produced before the Court on the very same day.
10. The learned Special Judge, after perusing the material, accepted the remand of the petitioner and sent him to judicial custody from 23.01.2026 to 06.02.2026 through docket order dated 23.01.2026. The 8 record reveals that the petitioner was also served with the remand report along with memory card on the same day.
11. The specific case of the prosecution is that the Investigating Officer, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, registered the crime and conducted searches in eight different places, including the house of the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner, his wife and other family members, who were well aware of the search operations conducted pursuant to the registration of the crime against the petitioner regarding disproportionate assets. The inventory proceedings were recorded and also signatures of the mediators as well as the petitioner were obtained and the same was not disputed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge or in this criminal petition.
12. The learned Special Judge, after considering the contentions of the respective parties, rejected the application filed by the petitioner by giving cogent reasons holding that the Investigating Officer had followed the mandatory procedure under the BNSS in effecting the arrest of the petitioner and produced him before the learned Special Judge for remand. The learned Special Judge, after perusing the material on record, remanded him and sent him to the judicial custody till 06.02.2026.
9
13. The record discloses that subsequent to judicial custody, the petitioner filed the application vide Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2026 for grant of bail and the same was dismissed on 12.03.2026. The petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.42 of 2026 for grant of interim bail and the said application was allowed granting interim bail from 12.03.2026 to 20.03.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner filed bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2026, which is still pending before the learned Special Judge.
14. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present criminal petition without disclosing the above material facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that filing of the bail application has nothing to do with the present criminal petition and that the present criminal petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge in rejecting the application seeking to declare his arrest as illegal. This Court is not inclined to deal with the said aspect, as the scope of the criminal petition is limited as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is valid or not.
15. Though learned counsel for the petitioner raised several other grounds including that the petitioner has not committed the offence and that the allegations of disproportionate assets are not true and correct, 10 this Court is not inclined to deal with those aspects, as they are not relevant for the adjudication of the present criminal petition.
16. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy supra, the son of the appellant was arrested at around 6 p.m. at Hyderabad Airport for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 read with 120-B of the IPC, and the appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus, namely, W.P.No.10858 of 2025, which was dismissed on 08.05.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Mihir Rajesh Shah supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 Cr.P.C/Section 47 of BNSS, every person arrested, irrespective of the offence or statute, must be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing in the language he understands. Where immediate written communication is not practicable, the grounds may initially be conveyed orally but must thereafter be furnished in writing within a reasonable time, and in any case, at least two hours before the person is produced before a Magistrate for remand. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. It is already stated supra, the Investigating Officer, after obtaining necessary orders from the competent Court, obtained search warrants as required under the provisions of Section 96 of the BNSS, conducted 11 search operations in various places including the premises of the petitioner, in the presence of the petitioner, his wife and other family members. The search was conducted after the officials introduced themselves and inform the reasons for the search. The search operations were videographed and the signatures of the petitioner and his wife were obtained in the inventory proceedings. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not having knowledge about the reasons for his arrest is not tenable under law.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 31.03.2026 mar