Latest news with #VihaanKumar
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Time of India
Cops must inform grounds for arrest: Chandigarh SSP
1 2 Chandigarh: SSP Kanwardeep Kaur has directed all police officers to ensure that individuals placed under arrest are clearly informed of the grounds for their arrest. The directive, issued on Monday, instructs all officers to strictly comply with this requirement in accordance with sections 47 and 48 of the BNS. The SSP stressed that any failure to follow these instructions will be viewed seriously. In her issued guidelines to the police officers, the SSP mentioned a judgement of the Supreme Court passed on Feb 7, 2025, in the Criminal Appeal from SLP of 2024, 'Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Another',' wherein the arrest was invalidated as the appellant wasn't informed of the arrest grounds, which is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. In the judgement, the apex court said, "Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the ground of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be constitutional requirement and statutory compliance of this to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be rendered illegal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Undo " Also, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh supplemented Justice Abhay S Oka's opinion, stating that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing not only to the arrested person but also to friends, relatives, or nominees of the arrested person, ensuring Article 22(1)'s effectiveness.
Hindustan Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds arrest in AP liquor scam
The Supreme Court on Friday found no fault in the Andhra Pradesh government's action to arrest former chief minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy's IT adviser in the ₹3,200-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor scam in April this year. A bench headed by justice JB Pardiwala dismissed a petition filed by the father of Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, who is currently in jail, alleging that his son's arrest was vitiated as no proper grounds were furnished by the Crime Investigation Department. The petitioner referenced the Supreme Court's February ruling in Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana, which held that arrest grounds must be meaningful enough to enable the accused to seek bail and approach the high court against illegal detention. 'Having looked into the grounds of arrest which were supplied to the son of the appellant at the time of his arrest, 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 bench, also comprising justice R Mahadevan, said while dismissing the petition as it found the Vihaan Kumar judgment's requirements were fully complied with. The court clarified that the accused retains the option of seeking regular bail from the competent court, directing that any pending application be taken up at the earliest. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Reddy, had challenged the Andhra Pradesh high court's dismissal of his petition on May 8. He questioned the CID's arrest on April 21, 2025, in connection with a first information report filed in September 2024 for offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy punishable under sections 420, 409 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Jethmalani argued that Article 22 of the Constitution requires police to inform every detainee about arrest grounds and produce the person before court within 24 hours. He contended this constitutional right was violated as no effective ground of arrest was communicated to Reddy, and prior sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act wasn't obtained before effecting the arrest. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, defending the state, produced records demonstrating that arrest grounds were supplied to Reddy when he was arrested from Hyderabad Airport and served on his father as well. Subsequently, he was brought to Vijayawada and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate for remand within 24 hours of arrest. As Reddy was the information technology adviser to the previous government led by Jaganmohan Reddy, Luthra argued that his responsibility had nothing to do with the excise policy scam in which he was arrested, hence there was no requirement for prior sanction. 'This is a case of conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering which caused huge wrongful loss to the state exchequer, distilleries and wrongful gain to influential individuals, private distilleries, suppliers to a tune of more than ₹3,200 crores, that occurred between October 2019 and March 2024 in AP State Beverages Corporation Limited, Vijayawada,' the CID stated in its reply. Informing the court about the alleged modus operandi, Luthra pointed said preferential or favourable allocation of orders were made to certain new brands in violation of existing norms, giving them undue market share and competitive advantage over existing brands. The procurement system was shifted to manual process, giving scope for such manipulation. In the arrest grounds, the CID informed Reddy that he was one of the 'key persons' in organising the kickback-driven liquor trade in Andhra Pradesh during 2019-2024. The conspiracy was hatched to suppress popular brands, promote blue-eyed brands and cause wrongful gain to the liquor syndicate through public servants by corrupt practices. The bench found that the limited issue to be considered was whether the arrest grounds supplied to Reddy were 'meaningful' and 'sufficient' to give a broad idea of the accusations levelled and explain why he was being taken into custody. The court held that while authorities aren't required to furnish full details of the offence, it must be adequate for an arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. 'The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the court for the trial of a case,' the court held.
