Case Summary: VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269

• Case Title: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. 
• Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
• Date of Judgment: 7th February 2025
• Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions:

1. Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
2. Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases)
3. Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail)
4. Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours)
5. Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code

BRIEF FACTS

The case arose from FIR No. 121 of 2023 dated 25th March 2023, registered for offences under Sections 409, 420,467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Vihaan Kumar was arrested on 10th June2024 at approximately 10:30 a.m. from his office premises at HUDA City Centre, Gurugram. He was taken toDLF Police Station and subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate at Gurgaon on 11th June 2024 at3:30 p.m.

The most shocking aspect of the case was that during his hospitalization at PGIMS, Rohtak, following his arrest,Vihaan Kumar was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. This was evidenced by photographs and later admitted by the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS through an affidavit dated 24th October 2024. As a result, the officials who were deployed to escort the appellant to the hospital were suspended, and a departmental inquiry was ordered against them.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the appellant’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated due to the failure to inform him of the grounds for his arrest?
2. Whether the appellant’s production before a magistrate beyond the stipulated 24-hour period violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of theCrPC?
3. Whether non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders, and its impact on ongoing proceedings?
4. Whether handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed constituted a violation of his fundamental right to dignity under Article 21?

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner’s:

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Vihaan Kumar, made the following submissions:

1. Non-communication of grounds: The appellant was not informed about the grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest, constituting a violation of Section 50 of CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Specific averments: The writ petition before the High Court contained specific averments in grounds A and B, and paragraph 13, asserting that the grounds of arrest were not communicated.
3. State’s failure to deny: The counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police did not deny the specific allegation of non-communication to the appellant, only stating that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest.
4. Precedential support: Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), he argued that failure to comply with Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC renders the arrest illegal.
5. 24-hour rule violation: The appellant was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, violating Article 22(2) and demanding immediate release. 

Respondent’s:

Senior Advocates Basant R. (for State of Haryana) and Siddharth Luthra (for the second respondent) argued:

1. Oral communication sufficient: There is no requirement under Article 22(1) or Section 50CrPC to communicate grounds of arrest in writing; oral communication suffices.
2. Case diary evidence: The daily diary contained an entry at 6:10 p.m. on 10th June 2024,noting that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest.
3. Arrest memo details: The arrest memo contained details of the offence, time and date of arrest, fulfilling the requirements of Section 50.
4. Delayed challenge: There was a delay of more than two months in raising the Article 22(1)violation contention.
5. Current custody basis: The appellant’s current custody is based on the process issued on the charge sheet, not the original arrest. 
6. Compliance with Article 22(2): The state claimed the arrest occurred at 6:00 p.m., ensuring production before the magistrate within 24 hours

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court, through Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivered a comprehensive judgment establishing several crucial principles. The Court emphasized that “the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement”. Article 22being included in Part III of the Constitution under Fundamental Rights makes this obligation sacrosanct. The Court reiterated the principle from Pankaj Bansal that “the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose”. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated in a language the arrestee understands. When an arrested person alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), “the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police” The Court held that this burden was not discharged in the present case.

Furthermore, the Court found the case diary entry at 6:10 p.m. to be an “afterthought” and insufficient evidence of compliance, noting that “no contemporaneous documents have been put on record wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted”. The Court categorically rejected the argument that informing the appellant’s wife about the arrest constitutes compliance with Article 22(1), which requires communication to the arrestee himself. The Supreme Court established that non-compliance with Article 22(1) has severe consequences. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. The Court held that “further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated” when the arrest itself is unconstitutional. Crucially, the Court rejected the argument that filing a charge sheet validates an unconstitutional arrest, stating that filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). 

Regarding the handcuffing and chaining incident, Justice Oka observed: This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21. 

RATIO DECIDENDI

• Mandatory Requirement: The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1).
• Effective Communication Standard: The information must be provided in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated effectively in the language the arrestee understands
• Burden of Proof Allocation: When an arrested accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: Non-compliance vitiates both the arrest and subsequent remand orders, though it does not affect the investigation, charge sheet, and trial on merits
• Judicial Duty: When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand,it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made
• Immediate Release Mandate: When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, “it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused”, overriding statutory restrictions on bail.

The court also observed that while not constitutionally mandated, providing grounds of arrest in writing is “the proper and ideal course” to avoid disputes and ensure effective exercise of rights. The Court clarified that Section 50 CrPC requirements are “in addition to what is provided in Article 22(1)” and cannot dilute constitutional mandates. The Court suggested that police should “scrupulously comply with their requirements of Article 22” while balancing individual rights with societal interests. The practice of handcuffing and chaining accused persons to hospital beds was condemned as inherently violative of Article 21. 

FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that Vihaan Kumar’s arrest on 10th June 2024 was vitiated due to non-compliance with Article 22(1). The Court ordered immediate release of the appellant from custody. Ongoing proceedings were preserved by clarifying that the finding would not affect the investigation, charge sheet, or trial on merits. Further, the court imposed conditions requiring the appellant to regularly attend trial court proceedings and furnish bond as per Section 91 of BNSS within two weeks. The court also directed the State of Haryana to issue comprehensive guidelines to police ensuring prevention of handcuffing accused persons on hospital beds and strict compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22. 

CONCLUSION

This landmark judgment significantly strengthens constitutional protections for arrested persons and establishes clear procedural safeguards that law enforcement agencies must follow. The decision reaffirms that constitutional rights cannot be compromised for administrative convenience and that courts have a duty to vigilantly protect these fundamental guarantees. The judgment serves as a comprehensive guide for future arrest procedures and emphasizes that the right to be informed of grounds of arrest is “not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard of personal liberty”. It also provides clear guidelines for magistrates during remand proceedings and establishes that constitutional violations can override statutory restrictions on bail. The case represents a significant milestone in Indian criminal jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that procedural fairness and human dignity are non-negotiable components of the criminal justice system.