ABOUT THE CASE:
Title: Vihan Kumar vs The State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 INSC 162
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Date of the Judgment: 07th February 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka
Petitioner: Vihan Kumar
Respondent: The State of Haryana
Legal Provisions Involved: Article 22 of the Constitution of India, Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the CrPC, and the corresponding provision in the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (referred to as ‘the BNSS’), is Section 35, Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
- FACTS:
Petitioner Vihan Kumar was arrested on 10th of June 2024 at his office in Gurugram, concerning FIR no.121, dated 25th March 2023 registered at DLF Police Station, Sector-29 (professing offences like fraud, felonious conspiracy, phony, felonious breach of trust, cheating, etc., under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code) (referred to as, ‘IPC’). There was a violation of the complainant’s right under Composition 22(1) of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Constitution’), as the complainant was not informed regarding the grounds for his arrest.
He was allegedly produced before the Judicial Magistrate of Gurgaon on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. There was a violation of Composition 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’).
The complainant was hospitalised in PGIMS, Rohtak, when he was arrested. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant presented photos which showed that he was shackled and chained while he was admitted to the sanitarium.
Consequently, a notice was issued on 4th October 2024 to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS to file an affidavit stating whether the complainant was handcuffed and chained to the sanitarium bed. On 21st October 2024, the Medical Supervisor of PGIMS noted that when the complainant was admitted to the sanitarium, he was handcuffed and chained to the bed.
- ISSUES RAISED:
The issue raised in this case is that the Supreme Court considered several crucial constitutional questions:
- Did the failure to inform Vihan Kumar of the reasons for his arrest violate Composition 22(1) of the Constitution of India?
As per Composition 22(1), a person who is arrested must be informed of the grounds for their arrest. The petitioner argued that the police did not inform him personally of the grounds for arrest.
- Did the act of chaining and clapping in iron the supplicant to a PGIMS sanitarium bed violate Composition 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Dignity)?
The complainant was arrested, and he was hospitalised in PGIMS, Rohtak. The supplicant was allegedly chained and shackled while being rehabilitated. There was a breach of the Right to Life and Dignity.
- Was the supplicant presented before the Magistrate within the obligatory period under Composition 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC (now Section 58 BNSS)?
There was a disagreement on the time of arrest, with contradictory records (10:30 a.m. vs. 6:00 p.m.). If he were arrested at 10:30 a.m. on June 10, 2024, and produced in court only the next day, it would violate the 24-hour rule.
- Were procedural safeguards followed during arrest and detention by the Haryana Police?
The supplicant contended that the arrest contravened the landmark SC guidelines on arrest and guardianship, the D.K. Basu guidelines (to cover the rights of individualities during arrest and detention).
- CONTENTION:
Petitioner Vihan Kumar’s Arguments:
Senior counsel, Shri Kapil Sibal, appeared on behalf of the Appellant, and the contentions were:
- Violation of Composition 22(1) – Not Informed of Grounds of Arrest: As per Composition 22(1) of the Constitution of India, a person who is arrested must be informed of the grounds for his arrest. Shri Kapil Sibal argued that the supplicant was not informed about the grounds of his arrest or the reasons for arrest, and hence, there was a violation of Section 50 of the CrPC.
- Violation of Composition 21 – Inhumane Treatment (Handcuffing and Chaining): The complainant was arrested when he was hospitalised in PGIMS sanitarium, Rohtak. The supplicant was allegedly chained and shackled while being rehabilitated. There was a breach of the Right to Life and Dignity.
- Violation of Composition 22(2) / Section 57 CrPC (now, Section 58 BNSS) – Delayed product before Magistrate: There was a disagreement on the time of arrest, with antithetical records (10:30 a.m. vs. 6:00 p.m.). It would violate the 24-hour rule.
- Non-compliance with Arrest Protocols (Violation of D.K. Basu Guidelines): The arrest violated the landmark Supreme Court guidelines on arrest and guardianship, the D.K. Basu guidelines (to cover the rights of individuals during arrest and detention).
- Police Misconduct and Abuse of Power: The manner of arrest, detention, and chaining was presented as substantiation of a violation of the complainant’s rights.
“The arrest, Police Misconduct, and abuse of Power against Vihan Kumar violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The police failed to inform him of the grounds for his arrest, shackled and chained him in a sanitarium bed without justification, and did not follow statutory and constitutional safeguards.”
Contentions by the Respondent (State of Haryana):
- Grounds of Arrest Were Communicated: Senior Counsel Shri Basant R. argued and drew our attention to the arrest memo, which contains details of the offense, time, and date of arrest, among other relevant information. He refocused out that the case journals were placed before the High Court. He submitted that in the daily journal, an entry was made at 6.10 p.m. on the 10th of June 2024, noting that the complainant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest.
- Production Before Magistrate Was Timely: The State argued that Vihan Kumar was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, as needed under Composition 22(2) of the Constitution, and Section 57 of the CrPC (now Section 58 BNSS).
The distinction in arrest timing (10:30 a.m. vs 6:00 p.m.) was a clerical or recording issue.
- Handcuffing Was Justified: The State claimed that handcuffing and chaining were necessary for security purposes for guarding against escape & ensuring the safety of others.
- D.K. Basu Guidelines Were Followed: The State argued that all procedural safeguards mentioned under the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal guidelines were followed:
- The arrest memo was prepared & inked.
- Information was given to the family.
- A medical examination was conducted.
- Every entry made in the police journal.
“The complainant was informed about the reasons for arrest, produced before the Magistrate on time, and treated as per legal and procedural norms. There was no violation of Constitutional Rights.”
- RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court’s judgment was predicated on three core indigenous violations. The three accounts behind the protestation of Vihan Kumar’s arrest and detention as unconstitutional are:
- Violation of Composition 22(1)- Right to be informed of arrest grounds: Right to be informed of arrest grounds As per Composition 22( 1), the Constitution authorizations that the person who is arrested must be informed about the grounds of his arrest. In this Court interprets that information must be given in clear, accessible language, and the Burden of evidence lies on the police to explain that they complied with Composition 22( 1) when challenged.
Findings: Vihan Kumar wasn’t duly informed about the grounds of his arrest, and his fundamental right under Composition 22( 1) was violated, which makes the arrest illegal.
- Violation of Composition 21- Dignity and Humane Treatment during Detention: Vihan Kumar was arrested when he was hospitalised in PGIMS sanitarium, Rohtak. The supplicant was allegedly chained and shackled while being rehabilitated. There was a violation of Composition 21, Right to Life, and quality.
The court interprets that the use of a chain & bind without a court order is a violation of Section 21. Police must follow the DK Basu guidelines.
Findings: The chaining and pinioning of the supplicant when he was hospitalised in PGIMS sanitarium, Rohtak constituted inhuman treatment and a violation of Composition 21.
- Violation of Composition 22(2) / Section 57 CrPC – Delayed Production Before Magistrate: Delayed production before Magistrate. The complainant was produced before the court after 24 hours. There was a disagreement on the time of arrest, with antithetical records( 1030 a.m. vs. 600 p.m.).
The court interprets that the police should maintain the reporters responsibly without any pastoral or recording of crimes.
Findings: There was a distinction in the time of arrest. Hence, there’s a violation of the 24-hour rule.
- DEFECTS OF LAW:
- The court has interpreted that the Constitution( under Composition 22) says every arrested person has the right to know the reason for their arrest. But there’s no clear rule about how this should be done. So, the law is indefinite and easy to misuse, which denies fair procedure at the time of arrest.
- Vihan was chained and shackled to a sanitarium bed like a miscreant. It violates Composition 21( right to life and quality), moral quality. The law doesn’t specify when and how police can use a bind. So, police misuse it. There’s an absence of codified statutory limits.
- The court has interpreted that “ indeed if the arrest was wrong, we can continue the trial.” This thinking ignores the indigenous Rights.
- The burden of proof medium isn’t duly defined. No law forces police to prove they followed the rights.
- INFERENCE:
- Conclusion: The honorable Supreme Court declared that Vihan Kumar’s Custody & arrest were illegal because the police violated his indigenous rights. The court ordered that the complainant shall be released and set at liberty incontinently. Also, the court ordered the complainant to regularly and presently attend the trial court. As the trial can continue, the arrest process must follow the law. The court directed the State of Haryana to issue strict guidelines to help prevent similar abuse in the future.
- The Abecedarian rights must be admired at the time of arrest, especially Composition 22( 1) and Composition 21, i.e., the Right to be informed of arrest grounds and the Right to Life and quality.
- The police must prove that they followed the law and respected these rights. However, the arrest is considered naturally illegal if these rights aren’t followed.
- Handcuffing or chaining the complainant without judicial authorization is unconstitutional and inhuman.
Penned by:
Himanshi Gupta
Citation:
Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 INSC 162
The Constitution of India, Art. 21 & 22(2)