The case “Vihaan Kumar v/s the State of Haryana” is marked as a landmark case by the Supreme Court of India. It puts light on the Article 22 of the Constitution while proving the validity and importance of Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc). The case also relies on 3 other landmark judgements as precedents. The main issue of the case is that the appellant- Vihaan Kumar was not informed of the grounds of arrest when his arrest was made. Other than this the appellant was detained in Police custody for more than 24 hours before producing him before the Judicial Magistrate. This case highlights the negligence and oppression by the Police.
APPELLANT: VIHAAN KUMAR
RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
COURT: SUPREME COURT
BENCH: JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In the following case, with the Appeal judgement dated to 30th of August 2024 passed by the learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana.
- The appellant Vihaan Kumar was arrested on 10th of June 2024.
- With the charges as mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR): Sec 409, Sec 420, Sec 467, Sec 468 and sec 471 read with Sec 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code which is now relaced with the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- According to the Appellant he was arrested at 10.30 am on 10th June. But the Police mentioned that he was arrested at 6.00 pm on 10th June 2024.
- He was taken to the DLF Police Station, Gurugram.
- He was later on produced before the Judicial Magistrate at Gurgaon on 11th June 2024.
ISSUES RAISED:
After the judgement passed by the Judicial Magistrate against the Appellant. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India yearning for Justice.
1st issue: Violation of Section 50 of the CrPc.
Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure code short for CrPc talks about “Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail”
According to Sec 50 any person who is arrested should be told the grounds of his arrest and also the reasons for his arrest. The section also mentions that the arrested person should be informed about his right to bail and the sureties that he would have to arrange for it.
As given in the Sec 50A the reasons and the ground of arrest also have to be informed and communicated to a friend or a relative of the person arrested.
The appellant was not only informed of the grounds of arrest but also was not given the reasons for his arrest.
2nd issue: Violation of Section 57 of the CrPc,
Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure code short for CrPc talks about “Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours”
According to Section 57 any person who is arrested cannot be detained for more than 24 hours of his arrest, he has to be produced before the magistrate within the 24 hours of his arrest excluding the time of travel between the Place of Arrest and the Court of Magistrate. A person can only be detained for more than 24 hours when the Police has a reasonable reason to believe so and has a special order from the Magistrate under section 167 of the CrPc.
3rd issue: Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution,
Article 22 of the Constitution is about “Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases” Article 22 is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India available to the citizens of India while some are available to non-citizens as well.
Article 22(1) says that any person who is arrested has to be informed of the grounds of his arrest and cannot be detained without being informed of those grounds. It also adds that a person arrested cannot be denied the right to have a legal representative.
The appellant was not informed about the grounds of his arrest thus violating his fundamental right guaranteed to him by the Constitution of India.
4th issue: Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution,
Article 22(2) says that any person who has been arrested has to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest excluding the time of journey from the Place of Arrest to the Court of Magistrate. It also states that no person can be detained for more than 24 hours without the authority of a Magistrate.
CONTENTION:
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:
- The Appellant argued that he was arrested at 10.30 am from the 3rd-5th floor of the Huda City Centre. While the Police cited that they arrested Vihaan Kumar at 6.00 pm. He was produced before the court of Magistrate at Gurgaon on 11th June 2024 at 3.30 pm which was 24 hours after being arrested violating Section 57 of the CrPc and the Art 22(2) of the Constitution.
- He made the allegation that neither in the Remand Report- a report which is submitted by the police to the magistrate when seeking to detain an arrested person beyond the initial 24hour period allowed under section 57 of the CrPc: nor in the order passed by the magistrate was the time of arrest mentioned.
- The order dated 4th October 2024 passed by the magistrate court recorded that after the appellant was arrested, he was admitted in the PGIMS Hospital in Rohtak. The Appellant provided evidence in the form of photographs. The photographs depicted Vihaan Kumar the appellant handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. The order dated 21st October 2024 recorded the Medical SP Officer’s statement and he confirmed that the appellant was truly chained and handcuffed to the hospital bed.
- The Appellant then pointed out that he was not informed about the grounds of his arrest and thus violating his fundamental right guaranteed to him by the Article 22(1) and also the violation of Sec50 of the CrPc.
- He brought attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Police Commissioner to the High Court, in which the officer said that the grounds were communicated to the appellant in some form, showing that they do not deny the fact that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the appellant. He also pointed out that in defense the Respondent only said that they had informed the Appellant’s wife of the grounds of arrest.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
- The Respondent submitted that the arrest was made at 6.00 pm on the 10th of June 2024. The 1st Respondent submitted that during the arguments in the High Court the grounds of the arrest were not handed, he said that it was not argued that the grounds of arrest were not even orally communicated. He urged that the grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the Remand Report on 11th June 2024 and that the Appellant was 2 months late.
- The Respondent added that even if the Appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article 22 the 1st respondent can arrest him again. The 1st Respondent relied on an entry made in the case diary of the Police Station at 6.10 pm on 10th June 2024 after informing the Appellant of his grounds of arrest.
- Lastly the Respondent said that the case diary maintained by the Police is a vital record which records that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the Appellant.
RATIONALE:
The rationale behind the Vihaan Kumar v/s the State of Haryana case lies behind the arbitrary actions of Police and the negligence and oppression caused by them. The case revolves around the grounds of arrest and the detainment of the Appellant.
While deciding the case Justice Abhay S. OKA, proves the validity of constitutional law. He instills upon the Respondents that the Constitution is above all and the violation of a constitutional right is far greater than that of the other Acts. The Constitution is the base of Law and Legislations in INDIA. The Constitution and the fundamental rights are the basic structure of the laws in India. If a law or a statute goes against the Constitution then it loses its validity.
While going further with the case, he also looked through the similar cases in history and the precedents followed were: a) Pankaj Bansal v/s Union of India
b) Prabir Purkayastha v/s State of NCT Delhi
The first case put emphasis on the written grounds to be communicated to the arrested person as soon as possible. The court also stated that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest would render it illegal and invalid.
The second case put emphasis on the written grounds just as the 1st case. It additionally gave distinction between ‘reasons’ and ‘grounds’ & the procedural irregularities in remand.
The court replied to the respondent on their repeated reliance on the Case Diary of the Police station saying that if the police want the court to rely on the mere case entry the grounds of arrest must’ve been there already before the arrest took place.
The court stated that if there is a failure in informing the grounds of arrest as soon as the arrest is made or after the arrest then the arrest stands to be invalidated. And if once the arrest is invalidated a person kept in custody is illegal.
The court also added that if an arrestee pleads before the court that he was not informed about his grounds of arrest the burden to prove the compliance with the laws will be on the Police. It also stated that it is the responsibility of the Magistrate to confirm whether there was compliance with Article 22(1) when the arrested person is brought in for a remand.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
The defects of law in this case aren’t the legal provision or the law. The defect here lies in the Police and the Magistrate. It was the duty of the police to abide by the laws and conduct the arrest in a proper legal manner. While on the other hand it was the duty of the Magistrate, when he remanded the appellant he should’ve confirmed that the arrest was in compliance with Article 22(1) and Sec 50 of the CrPc. The reason is that non-compliance would’ve declared the arrest illegal. It is the duty of the Courts to uphold Fundamental Rights. The High Court also passed the Judgement on the basis of the information given on the grounds of arrest and not the informing of the grounds of arrest, even the high courts have the duty to uphold the fundamental rights as of other courts.
INFERENCE:
The case navigates through the Criminal Procedure Code and the constitutionality of Article 22. It shows us the negligence on the behalf of the police and the illegal detainment of the Appellant. One’s Fundamental Rights cannot be run over in any circumstances. Section 50 of the CrPc plays an important role in arrests. Informing an arrested person his grounds of arrest is very crucial because that forms the 1st step of the arrest and gives the arrestee the right to a legal representative which he can choose by knowing his grounds of Arrest. Any arrest made without informing the grounds of the arrest is vitiated and thus making the arrest illegal.
In the case, the treatment given to the appellant while he was admitted in the hospital is not acceptable and hurts his fundamental right to live with dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION:
In the end, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana has obliterated several constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It’s equally explicit proposition flowing from the holding that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest directly to the person arrested renders the arrest itself unconstitutional.
By such a ruling and declaration of the arrest as illegal, coupled with rebuke of custodial tortures, not only is civil liberty safeguarded, but also a new demand for system reforms created. It is thus important that law enforcement agencies and judicial officers internalize this judgment to ensure future arrests are conducted as per the law, therefore strengthening the rule of law.
Vaishnavi C. Pardale
University of Mumbai- Thane Sub campus