Menu

VIHAAN KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Case Comment, Publications

ABOUT THE CASE

Case title:  Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Citation:     2025 INSC 162

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction 

Arising out of Special Leave Petition:(Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024

Date of judgment:  7th February, 2025

Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh 

Petitioner: Vihaan Kumar 

Respondent: the state of Haryana

Legal provisions involved: Article 22 and sections 50& 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FACTS

  1. An FIR (No. 121/2023) was registered against the appellant for his alleged involvement in financial scams involving Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, and Forgery reportedly under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) on the 25th of March, 2023, at DLF Police Station, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana. The FIR was lodged in pursuance of a complaint by the 2nd respondent. The appellant was arrested on 10th June, 2024.
  2. Dispute Regarding Timeline of Arrest 

According to the submissions of the appellant, he was arrested at 10:30 AM on the 10th June 2024 from his office premises at HUDA City Centre, Gurugram. However, according to the respondent’s submissions and the evidence produced, the arrest took place at 6:00 PM on the said day. Later, on 11th June 2024, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at around 3:30 PM. This has raised concerns about violation of Article 22(2) and section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), which mandates production within 24 hours.

  1. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights 

The appellant alleged that the grounds of arrest were neither communicated at the time of arrest nor recorded in the arrest memo, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC. The same was refuted by the Respondents in their written statement, stating that the wife of the Appellant was made aware of the grounds of arrest as well as of the arrest itself.

  1. Custodial Mistreatment 

The order passed by the court on 4th October 2024 recorded that after arrest, the appellant was hospitalized in PGIMS Rohtak. Where he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed, the photographs of the same were produced before the court, and the same was admitted by the Medical Superintendent at PGIMS in an affidavit. A departmental inquiry was initiated in this regard on the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, and as a result, the concerned officer was suspended on 23rd October 2024.

  1. Procedural History

Before moving to the Supreme Court, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2024; however, the same was dismissed by the honorable court on 30th August 2024, holding that there had been no violation of Article 22(1) and the allegations about non-communication of arrest grounds were held to be “bald and unsubstantiated”.

Hence, the appellant moved to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition 

SLP(Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024. 

ISSUES RAISED

The main issues involved in the present case were:

  1. Whether non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the detenu constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of CrPC, thereby rendering the arrest unconstitutional and illegal?
  2. Whether the grounds of arrest must be conveyed to the accused in writing to satisfy the mandate under Article 22(2)?
  3. Whether the custodial treatment, handcuffing, and chaining on a hospital bed in this case violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21?
  4. Whether the Court can grant bail despite statutory restrictions depends on the existence of a constitutional violation?

CONTENTIONS

The learned senior counsel Shri. Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the contentions put forward were as follows:

  1. Violation of Article 22(1): Appellant contended that he was never informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest being made, i.e., on 10th June 2024. This omission constituted a direct violation of Article 22(1), which mandates that the person who is being arrested must be informed of his grounds of arrest and, therefore, vitiated the arrest and rendered it unconstitutional and illegal.
  2. No particulars or grounds of arrest were conveyed orally or in writing, and no credible evidence of compliance with Section 50(1) CrPC was produced. The arrest memo and daily diary entry without proof of actual communication to the accused were insufficient to demonstrate compliance.
  3. Communication to Appellant’s Wife did not fulfil the mandate; It was further contended that communication of arrest details to the appellant’s wife did not satisfy the requirements under Article 22(1). Counsel argued that the fundamental right is personal to the detenu and cannot be exercised 

Vicariously by informing the family or friends without informing the arrestee.

  1. Violation of Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC: The appellant stood by his statement wherein he stated that he was arrested at 10:30 AM on 10th June 2024, and that he was produced before the Magistrate only at 3:30 PM on 11th June 2024, which was beyond the statutorily permissible limit. To prove the same the counsel relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT) of Delhi wherein it was held that “failure of 1st respondent to comply with the mandate of Article 22(2) and Section 50 of CrPC, the arrest of the Appellant is rendered illegal”.
  2. Subsequent Remand: It was urged by the Appellate counsel that subsequent judicial remand or filing of a chargesheet cannot validate an arrest that was unconstitutional initially.
  3. Custodial Mistreatment: The appellant drew attention to the fact that after arrest, when he was hospitalised at PGIMS, Rohtak, he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed; the same was proven by way of production of photographs. He contended that such blatant violation of standard procedures and custodial amounted to a violation of his Right to Dignity under Article 21.
  4. Lastly, it was submitted that once a prima facie allegation of violation of Article 22(1) is made, the entire burden of proof shifts to the state and the arresting authority to demonstrate compliance.

The state was represented by learned senior counsel Shri Basant R., who produced the following contentions and arguments in response to appellate counsel:

  1. Oral Communication of Grounds of Arrest: The respondents contended that there was no statutory requirement under Article 22(1) or Section 50 of CrPC mandating that the grounds of arrest be communicated in writing; it was sufficient compliance to orally communicate the same, and therefore, the same was not violated.
  2. The respondents produced the arrest memo and the case diary to prove compliance by the respondents and submitted that the arrest memo included the time, date, and nature of the offence, and the case diary contained an entry of arrest dated 10th June 2024 at 6:10 PM, which had been duly prepared and maintained by procedural requirements. It was further argued that such entry was contemporaneous and credible record which satisfied both statutory and constitutional mandate.
  1. It was further contended that Appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest and the grounds thereof, which was made twice that was communicated once via a phone call and later on her visit to the Appellant. It was asserted that steps taken by the police fulfilled the requirement under Section 50A of the CrPC.
  1. Delay concerning Article 22(2) and Section 57 did not occur: The respondents claimed that the arrest was made at 6:00 PM on 10th June 2024 and not 10:30 AM, and since the appellant was produced before the magistrate at 3:30 PM on 11th June 2024, the production was well within the 24-hour mandate.
  1. The state argued that even if there were any procedural irregularities at the time of arrest, they were rendered correct by subsequent charge sheet filing and remand orders issued by the competent Magistrate. Therefore, Appellant was then in lawful custody under judicial order, making any prior defects immaterial.
  1. The Respondents acknowledged the mistreatment against the Appellant and clarified that disciplinary action was taken against the gross violation of Article 21, and the concerned officer was suspended by an order dated 23rd October 2024.
  1. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that there has been a delay of more than 2 months in raising the contention regarding the violation of Article 22(1), and the same should be taken into account.

Learned Senior Counsel Shri. Siddharth Luthra appeared on behalf of Respondent 2 and supported the contentions of learned counsel for 1st Respondent.

RATIONALE

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh noted as follows:

After hearing both sides, the judges observed that the interpretation of Article 22(5) in the case of Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra applies ipso facto to Article 22(1), insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is concerned, further emphasis was placed on Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India “If the grounds are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing is writing is given to given, in language he understands, then the purpose is not served.” Thus, the requirements of informing a person of the grounds of arrest are a mandatory requirement, and that the same be communicated in a language he understands, which respondents failed to discharge their obligation.

It was further added that the subsequent filing of a charge sheet will not validate a breach of a constitutional mandate under Article 22(1), and when an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it shall be a duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance has been made, and if a violation is established it shall be the duty of the court to order the release of the accused. Even though statutory restrictions on bail exist, as these restrictions do not affect the power of the court.

The stand taken by the High Court, only on the basis of an entry in the police diary, was held unacceptable and not in compliance with Article 22(1) and was held to be completely irrelevant. Therefore, the arrest of the Appellant was held illegal.

It was further held that right to live with dignity is a part of rights guaranteed under Article 21, and the Honourable Court directed the state government to issue necessary directions to ensure that such illegalities are not committed in the future.

As an addition to the judgment, Justice Kotiswar Singh added that information and grounds of arrest shall also be made available to the concerned family members, relatives, and friends of the detenu to ensure that they can take immediate and prompt steps to secure his release and get him represented in the court of law.  

DEFECTS OF LAW

  1. The courts have for a long time interpreted information of arrest and grounds of arrest to be the same, and information was being taken as an umbrella term which supposedly covered the grounds of arrest, which has led to a violation of the Fundamental Right of detained persons under Article 22.
  2. In this case, the remand report and arrest memo lacked the crucial details that signal towards the non-transparency in the Indian judicial system, as this is not just used by Police but is admitted as evidence in court, which can lead to error in judgment by the court, as occurred in the case. 
  3. Section 50 A is being misused to evade the liability of communicating personally, as they failed to differentiate the duties in Article 22 as to the detenu and under Section 50A as to the relatives of the detenu.
  4. Finally, there is no penalty for violating Article 22; there is no express provision that provides for a penal consequence in cases of violation of Article 22. The same though may be declared illegal, but there’s no automatic accountability.

INFERENCES

The Vihaan Kumar Judgment is a landmark in the evolving jurisprudence of personal liberty and procedural safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, especially in reaffirming the right to be personally informed of the grounds of arrest as a substantive safeguard. Through this case, the Honourable Supreme Court has made it clear that failure to comply with the aforesaid requirement renders the arrest unconstitutional, and any subsequent judicial remand or charge sheet cannot cure this prior defect.

While the court took a stand on personal liberty, it fell short in awarding any direct relief to the unconstitutional arrest and the custodial mistreatment. Nevertheless, the judgment is valuable for interpreting the procedural norms in clear terms and directing the state government to issue directions to the police stations regarding such mistreatment.

NAME:  DISHIMA JAIN

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (VSLLS-VIPS)