Sri Kandadi Madhusudhan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 178 Tel

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,

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

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

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228

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

(2026) 1 SCC 500

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

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.

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

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.

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,

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

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