Vihaan Kumar …Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Anr ….Respondents
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type & No | Criminal Appeal [SLP (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024] |
| Date of Judgment | 7 Febraury 2025 |
| Bench | Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh |
Introduction
The concerned landmark judgment, delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, addressed the critical issue of violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that an arrest is illegal if the arrested person is not informed regarding the grounds for arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment reaffirms the sacrosanct nature of Article 22(1), establishes the necessity of meaningful communication of grounds of arrest, and highlights the illegality of handcuffing an accused in a hospital that violates Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The Court held that in such cases, the accused must be granted bail despite statutory restrictions. It further emphasized that magistrates must ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards during remand proceedings.
Facts of the case
- On 25th March, 2023, an FIR (No. 121/2023) was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust.
- The Appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was accused of fraud by Games Kraft Technologies’ CEO, he was arrested on 10th June, 2024 at about 10:30 a.m., at his office premise.
- He was taken to DLF Police Station and produced before the Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.
- The State claimed the arrest occurred at 6:00 p.m. on 10th June, 2024, showcasing the compliance with Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
- The appellant alleged he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)/ (Section 47 BNSS).
- He further claimed a violation of Article 22(2) and Section 57 of CrPC/ Section 58 BNSS, as he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
- The remand report and magistrate’s order dated June 11, 2024, did not mention the time of arrest, supporting the appellant’s claim.
- Post-arrest, Vihaan Kumar was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed, as evidenced by photographs.
- The Medical Superintendent of PGIMS (Sh. Abhimanyu) admitted this in an affidavit filed on October 24, 2024, following a Supreme Court notice issued on 4th October , 2024.
- The officials responsible were suspended, and a departmental inquiry was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 23rd October, 2024.
- Vihaan Kumar filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the legality of his arrest due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC and requesting CCTV footage of his detention.
- The High Court, in its judgment dated 30th August, 2024, upheld the arrest, accepting police claims without scrutinizing these procedural violations and dismissing the appellant’s claims as bald allegations.
- Aggrieved, Vihaan Kumar filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024 before the Supreme Court.
Issues raised
- Whether the Appellant’s arrest was rendered illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution i.e. failure to communicate grounds of arrest?
- Whether the treatment given to appellant (handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed) violated his fundamental right to dignity under Article 21?
- Whether subsequent legal processes like remand and chargesheet can validate an arrest vitiated by constitutional violations.
- Whether the burden to prove compliance with Article 22(1) lies with the arresting agency when non-compliance is alleged.
Contentions
Appellant’s argument
- He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, violating Article 22(1).
- The High Court made mistake in accepting the State’s timeline without verifying whether his constitutional rights were upheld.
- CCTV footage should have been examined to determine if the procedural safeguards were followed.
- The arrest was illegal and should be set aside, with an immediate grant of bail.
Respondent’s argument
- The arrest was lawful, and all due procedures were followed.
- The grounds of arrest were communicated, and there was no violation of Article 22(1).
- The High Court correctly dismissed the petition, relying on the police’s submission of events.
- The petitioner was arrested as per statutory provisions, and granting bail was not justified.
Rationale
- Justice Abhay S. Oka’s made the observation and stated:
- Violation of Article 22(1): Failure to Communicate Grounds of Arrest
The Supreme Court held that Article 22(1) mandates that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest “as soon as may be,” ensuring the ability to challenge detention and seek legal remedies. The Court referred to Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2023 INSC 866 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 INSC 414 and held that communication of grounds must be meaningful and effective, preferably in writing, to avoid disputes. While Article 22(1) does not explicitly require written communication, the Court ruled that vague assertions or oral claims by police are insufficient. - The Appellant’s petition specifically pleaded non-communication of grounds of arrest, which the State failed to counter in its affidavits. Instead, the State claimed the Appellant’s wife was informed, which the Supreme Court dismissed as irrelevant to constitutional compliance. The State’s reliance on a case diary entry (recording communication of grounds at 6:10 PM) was rejected by the Court as an “afterthought” due to the absence of contemporaneous documentation of the actual grounds. The Court reasoned that the burden to prove compliance lies on the State, and mere diary entries without detailing the grounds were deemed inadequate. The Court thus held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiated the arrest, rendering all subsequent custody unlawful
- Violation of Article 21: Handcuffing and Chaining to Hospital Bed
The Supreme Court condemned the Appellant’s treatment as a gross violation of dignity under Article 21. The Court found the handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed without justification shocking and unconstitutional. The Court directed the State to issue guidelines to prevent such practices, emphasizing that custodial treatment must respect human dignity
- He criticized the High Court for equating information about the arrest with grounds of arrest and failing to address the violation of Article 22(1), calling its dismissal of the appellant’s claims as “bald”.
- While Article 22(1) does not mandate written grounds, recommended providing grounds in writing to avoid disputes and ensure compliance, though acknowledged this may not always be practicable.
- Whereas, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh’s observed:
- He concurred with Justice Oka’s analysis, emphasizing the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) and its incorporation in Section 50 of CrPC and Section 19 of the PMLA.
- He highlighted that communicating grounds of arrest to the arrestee and their nominated persons (under Section 50A of CrPC) enables prompt legal action to secure release, reinforcing the right to liberty under Article 21.
- He reaffirmed that non-compliance with the requirement to communicate grounds in writing renders the arrest illegal, making the safeguard meaningful and effective.
- The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of Vihaan Kumar with a bond submission, the decision does not affect the merits of the charge sheet or ongoing trial and the protective bail mandated and the bond under Section 91 BNSS required.
- Moreover, Haryana State required implementing strict SOPs for informing arrestees of grounds, issue explicit guidelines to prohibit chaining/handcuffing in hospitals and a copy of the judgment will go to the Haryana Home Secretary.
Drawbacks
- Police officers now face stricter procedural obligations to inform arrestees of grounds in a language they understand.
- This may delay urgent arrests in fast-moving investigations, especially in multilingual or rural areas.
- Accused persons might exploit minor procedural lapses to seek bail or quash proceedings, even in serious crimes.
- Judgment lacks a clear standard for what constitutes “meaningful informing” of arrest grounds.
- May lead to inconsistent implementation across states.
- Mandate for magistrates to verify compliance adds to their already heavy workload, potentially delaying remand hearings.
- Prohibition of chaining/handcuffing in hospitals or public spaces may pose security risks, especially for violent or high-risk offenders.
- States may need to retrain police, issue SOPs, and translate arrest documents into multiple regional languages, straining resources.
- Expected rise in petitions challenging arrests, adding pressure on already burdened courts.
Inference
- The arrest was declared illegal because the accused was not meaningfully informed of the grounds for the arrest. The Court reaffirmed that compliance with Article 22(1) is mandatory and cannot be treated as a mere formality.
- When an arrestee alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), it’s up to the authorities to demonstrate adherence to constitutional requirements. Vague entries or superficial documentation are insufficient.
- Actions such as filing a charge sheet, obtaining remand, or beginning trial proceedings cannot validate an arrest that was unconstitutional in the first place.
- The Court held that if constitutional rights are breached—specifically Article 22(1)—courts can grant bail even in non-bailable offenses, reaffirming the primacy of personal liberty.
- Detaining the accused while he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed violated Article 21, which protects the right to dignity. This prompted the Court to direct the State to issue guidelines to avoid such mistreatment.
- Simply notifying relatives about an arrest does not satisfy the constitutional mandate. The Court clarified that the arrestee alone must be informed of the grounds in a language they understand.
- Before granting remand, magistrates must ensure that constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) have been duly followed. Failing that, immediate release must be granted.
- The State of Haryana was instructed to issue departmental guidelines to prevent chaining or handcuffing arrestees in hospital settings and to uphold Article 22 norms in future arrests.
Conclusion
This landmark judgment establishes a framework for protecting fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, declared Vihaan Kumar’s arrest illegal due to the failure to communicate grounds of arrest, setting a precedent that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody. The Court’s directive to the State of Haryana to issue guidelines against handcuffing in hospitals underscores the protection of dignity under Article 21. By mandating that courts verify compliance with Article 22(1) during remand and placing the burden on the police to prove compliance, the judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards and provides clear judicial guidelines for future cases involving arrests without warrants. It ordered his immediate release and emphasized that courts must protect personal liberty from unconstitutional arrests. The ruling states that bail must be granted when fundamental rights are violated, regardless of statutory limitations.
THIS CASE COMMENT IS WRITTEN BY RADHIKA VERMA FROM UILS PANJAB UNIVERSITY.