Supreme Court Upholds Arrest in ₹3,200 Crore Liquor Scam Case — “Grounds of Arrest Clearly Detail Role in Kickbacks and Misuse of Shell Companies” — Affirms Written Communication of Arrest Grounds Must Be Substantive, Not a Full Charge Sheet

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the legality of the arrest of the appellant’s son in connection with an alleged ₹3,200 crore liquor scam, upholding the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment rejecting the habeas corpus plea. The Court held that:

“It is difficult for us to take the view that the grounds do not make any sense or are not meaningful or are just an eyewash.”

The Court concluded that the grounds of arrest fulfilled the constitutional and statutory requirements under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), thereby rendering the arrest lawful.

Facts

• The appellant’s son was arrested on 21.04.2025 at Hyderabad Airport in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 registered under Sections 420, 409 read with 120-B of IPC and corresponding sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• He was made Accused No. 1 on 19.04.2025 through a case diary entry and produced before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada, on 22.04.2025, within 24 hours.
• The appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 before the High Court alleging illegal detention due to non-communication of meaningful grounds of arrest.

Issues

1. Whether the grounds of arrest served on the appellant’s son complied with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47–48 of the BNSS?
2. Whether the arrest was vitiated for want of sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
3. Whether the remand proceedings and continued custody were lawful?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The arrest was illegal as the appellant’s son was not named in the FIR and was only treated as a witness under Section 179 BNSS.
• The grounds of arrest were vague and lacked material particulars required to satisfy Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS.
• The invocation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was illegal without a sanction under Section 17A for the appellant’s son.
• The arrest was allegedly a coercive measure to compel him to implicate the former Chief Minister in the liquor policy scam.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The appellant’s son was formally made an accused on 19.04.2025 and was arrested on 21.04.2025 with proper grounds of arrest communicated in writing and also served to his father.
• The arrest and remand complied with Article 22(2) and BNSS provisions; he was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
• Approval under Section 17A was obtained only for a co-accused (a public servant), and such approval was not necessary for the appellant’s son who was only an IT advisor without decision-making authority under the liquor policy.
• Reliance on Priya Indoria was misplaced, and the arrest was lawful under established precedent.

Analysis of the Law

The Court analysed:

• Article 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution — emphasizing protection of liberty and the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest.
• Sections 47–48 BNSS — detailing the obligations to inform arrestees and their relatives of the grounds of arrest and place of detention.
• Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act — governing sanctions for investigation against public servants, found not applicable to the appellant’s son.

Precedent Analysis

The Court extensively relied on:

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269:
  • “If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).”
  • “Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.”

The Court distinguished Vihaan Kumar on facts, noting that while Vihaan dealt with a complete absence of communication, the present case involved meaningful written grounds served at the time of arrest.

Other precedents:

• State of Bombay v. Atma Ram (AIR 1951 SC 157)
• Vimal Kishore Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1956 All 56)
• English & US precedents (Christie v. Leachinsky, McNabb v. USA)

Court’s Reasoning

• The grounds of arrest clearly listed specific acts such as the role in managing liquor distribution, channeling ₹3,200 crores in kickbacks, manipulation of procurement policies, and misuse of shell companies.
• The grounds were supplied to both the accused and his father and were not superficial or general.
• Compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS was established.
• The arrest could not be declared illegal merely because the remand report was served the following day, as the contemporaneous arrest memo and grounds were meaningful.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the arrest, holding:

“The requirement in terms of para 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) could be said to have been fulfilled.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified:

“It shall be open for the person arrested… to apply for regular bail… which shall be decided in accordance with law.”

Implications

• Reinforces the distinction between the complete absence and adequacy of communicated grounds.
• Clarifies that sanction under Section 17A PC Act is person-specific and not required for individuals with no decision-making role.
• Affirms that written communication of arrest grounds must be substantive but need not resemble full charge sheets.
• Highlights the evolving jurisprudence on Article 22(1) and procedural fairness in arrest and remand.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Decree Granting Possession Based on GPA Sale Without Proven Possession: “Possession Is the Culmination and Fruit of the Transaction of Sale”