Published On: 8th September 2025
Authored By: Gunda Mahesh Prasad
Mahatma Gandhi Law College.
Citation:
Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana & Anr (2025) INSC 162 (SC)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 7 February 2025
Bench Type: Division Bench
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Introduction
The case of Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana & Anr. (2025) INSC 162 is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India concerning the fundamental rights of arrestees, particularly under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of a person arrested to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, a private individual and businessman, was arrested in connection with a criminal case involving allegations of financial fraud and conspiracy. The first respondent was the State of Haryana, represented through the police department and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram. The second respondent was the original complainant in the FIR, whose complaint led to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant.
The case reached the Supreme Court through a Criminal Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024, which challenged the legality and constitutionality of the arrest and subsequent detention of the appellant. The core constitutional question was whether the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee vitiates the arrest itself, and whether such a violation renders all subsequent custody orders unlawful.
This case stands as a crucial precedent in strengthening procedural safeguards and reinforcing judicial scrutiny of arrest powers under criminal law in India.
Key Facts
The case arose out of the arrest of Vihaan Kumar, the appellant, who was implicated in a criminal case registered as FIR No. 121 of 2023, dated 25 March 2023, under serious charges including Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), Section 420 (cheating), Sections 467, 468, and 471 (forgery and use of forged documents), and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the appellant, he was arrested on 10 June 2024, around 10:30 AM, from his office premises located on the 3rd to 5th floors of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana. After arrest, he was taken to the DLF Police Station, Sector 29, Gurugram. He was later shown to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, on 11 June 2024 at 3:30 PM, thus exceeding the 24-hour limit prescribed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
The appellant alleged that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, either orally or in writing, as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC. It was further argued that neither the remand report nor the Magistrate’s order dated 11 June 2024 recorded the exact time of arrest. The state, in contrast, claimed that the arrest took place at 6:00 PM on the same day, implying compliance with the 24-hour rule for production before a magistrate.
In a disturbing turn, the Supreme Court noted that after his arrest, the appellant was hospitalized at PGIMS Rohtak, during which he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed, in violation of the guidelines for humane treatment of prisoners. Photographs submitted by the appellant confirmed this mistreatment, prompting the Court to issue a notice to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS Rohtak on 4 October 2024, asking for clarification. In response, the Medical Superintendent admitted, through an affidavit dated 21 October 2024, that the appellant was indeed handcuffed and chained while under medical care. A further affidavit dated 24 October 2024, filed by Shri Abhimanyu, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (EOW I and II, Gurugram), stated that the responsible escorting officers had been suspended, and a departmental inquiry was initiated.
Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appellant had filed a writ petition seeking his release on the ground that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC. In the writ petition, Grounds A, B, and E specifically asserted that there had been no communication—either oral or written—of the reasons for his arrest. The State’s reply to the High Court did not deny this assertion; instead, it merely claimed that the appellant’s wife had been informed.
Despite these pleadings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 30 August 2024, holding that the petitioner had been “informed about his arrest” and that there was “nothing to disbelieve” the police version. The High Court equated the act of informing someone of their arrest with communicating the grounds of arrest, without examining whether there was any meaningful or effective communication of the grounds.
Aggrieved, Vihaan Kumar approached the Supreme Court of India via a Special Leave Petition, challenging both the constitutional validity of his arrest and the procedural irregularities, particularly:
1) Failure to inform him of the grounds of arrest, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC.
2) Delay in producing him before a magistrate within 24 hours, in violation of Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC.
3) Unlawful use of handcuffs and chains during hospitalization violating his right to dignity under Article 21.
The State’s defence in the Supreme Court included new claims—that the grounds of arrest were communicated orally and recorded in the case diary at 6:10 PM on 10 June 2024, and that they were mentioned in the remand report submitted to the magistrate. However, these arguments were found to be unsupported by earlier pleadings, and the documents submitted failed to demonstrate contemporaneous or meaningful communication of arrest grounds to the appellant himself.
Thus, the factual narrative presented to the Supreme Court showed a clear lapse in constitutional compliance by the police, both in terms of procedural law and fundamental rights.
Legal Issues
1) Whether the appellant’s arrest violated his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution by failing to communicate the grounds of arrest.
2) Whether subsequent custody and remand orders were vitiated due to this alleged violation.
3) Whether communication of arrest to a relative (and not to the accused himself) satisfies constitutional requirements.
4) The role of procedural compliance with CrPC Sections 50 and 50A in validating the arrest.
5) The legality of handcuffing and chaining the accused during hospitalization post-arrest.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the appellant Vihaan Kumar, argued:
1) The arrest was unconstitutional as the appellant was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC.
2) No contemporaneous record showed that the arresting officers communicated any grounds for arrest to the appellant in writing or orally.
3) The reply filed by the police before the High Court did not even deny the allegation that the grounds were not communicated.
4) Cited the Supreme Court’s recent judgments in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576], and Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], to argue that communication of arrest grounds must be meaningful, immediate, and preferably in writing.
5) Alleged violation of Article 22(2) due to delayed production before a magistrate, and emphasized that unlawful arrest violates Article 21 (right to liberty and dignity).
For the Respondents:
For the State of Haryana (1st Respondent):
Represented by Senior Advocate Basant R., who argued:
1) That there was substantial compliance with Article 22(1), and oral communication of arrest grounds suffices under Indian law.
2) Arrest memo and case diary entry dated 10 June 2024 at 6:10 PM recorded that the accused was informed of the charges.
3) Cited Section 50 CrPC, suggesting that either the offence or other grounds can be communicated orally.
4) Asserted that the accused’s wife was informed about the arrest and shown relevant documents.
5) Claimed the delay in production before a magistrate was justifiable and did not vitiate the remand or custody.
For the Complainant (2nd Respondent):
Represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who:
1) Supported the arguments made by the State.
2) Emphasized that the police case diary serves as contemporaneous evidence that the arrest was lawful and the grounds were conveyed.
3) Argued that the appellant was now in lawful judicial custody under a chargesheet and cognizance order, and hence the arrest’s legality had no bearing on the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Judgment
1) The arrest of Vihaan Kumar on 10 June 2024 was declared illegal and unconstitutional.
2) The Supreme Court ordered his immediate release.
3) The Court clarified that while the arrest and custody are vitiated, the chargesheet and trial proceedings remain unaffected.
4) Directed the State of Haryana to issue departmental guidelines to prevent handcuffing in hospitals and ensure strict compliance with Article 22(1) during future arrests.
5) Magistrates are henceforth required to verify compliance with Article 22(1) before remanding any arrestee to custody.
Key Judicial Observations
Justice Abhay S. Oka reasoned:
1) The Court unequivocally held that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not a procedural formality but a constitutional mandate essential to safeguarding personal liberty under Article 21.
2) The judgment distinguished between informing someone “about the arrest” and informing “the grounds of arrest.” Communication with the appellant’s wife was not deemed adequate.
3) Drawing from Pankaj Bansal, the Court held that communication must be “meaningful” and in a language understood by the accused. Oral communication alone was deemed insufficient unless recorded and substantiated.
4) The police failed to produce contemporaneous documentary evidence (like arrest memos or diary entries specifying the grounds of arrest) that proved communication to the accused.
5) The Court ruled that a violation of Article 22(1) vitiates not only the arrest but also subsequent remand orders. Even if a charge sheet is filed, the arrest must be declared unconstitutional if it violated fundamental rights.
6) The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for dismissing the appellant’s plea without adequately engaging with the constitutional issues raised.
7) The act of chaining and handcuffing the accused to a hospital bed was declared unconstitutional. It violated Article 21 (right to dignity) and existing guidelines regarding humane treatment of detainees.
Impacts of the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case significantly advances the jurisprudence on the rights of arrestees, marking a transformative moment in Indian constitutional and criminal law. Its effects are both immediate and far-reaching:
1) The judgment underscores that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not optional or a formality, but a fundamental constitutional obligation. It clarifies that vague, belated, or indirect communication (e.g., to a relative) cannot substitute this duty.
2) Although Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC do not explicitly require written communication, the Court strongly suggested that written grounds should be provided as a best practice to prevent future disputes, thereby raising the compliance standard for police agencies.
3) The Court held that any arrest that violates Article 22(1) is ipso facto unconstitutional. This decision empowers courts to invalidate the arrest and custody, release the detainee immediately, even if the investigation or trial continues. Override statutory bail restrictions, recognizing the primacy of constitutional rights.
4) The judgment mandates that Judicial Magistrates must ensure compliance with Article 22(1) before authorizing any remand. This shifts part of the constitutional burden to the judiciary, not just law enforcement.
5) The Court condemned the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant during hospitalization. It directed the State of Haryana to issue new rules and departmental instructions to prevent such human rights violations, reinforcing jurisprudence from Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration and Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration.
6) The ruling is expected to prompt police training reforms, institutional changes, and revisions to standard operating procedures (SOPs) governing arrests and detainee treatment across India. Legal institutions and law enforcement academies are likely to incorporate this judgment into foundational training.
7) The case strengthens a growing body of judgments prioritizing due process, transparency, and accountability in the criminal justice system. It will likely serve as a precedent in bail hearings, writ petitions, and remand challenges where illegal arrest is alleged.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana & Anr. delivered a principled and progressive verdict, reinforcing that constitutional rights cannot be abridged by procedural convenience. By declaring the arrest unlawful due to non-communication of the grounds, the Court highlighted that liberty is not just a formal ideal but a practical guarantee that must be respected by every arm of the State.
The judgment affirms the constitutional architecture of arrest procedures, integrates comparative jurisprudence from earlier landmark cases like Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, and imposes institutional responsibilities on both law enforcement and the judiciary.
In an era of increasing concern about arbitrary arrests, custodial violence, and the erosion of civil liberties, this decision reestablishes that Article 21 and Article 22 form a twin bulwark against State overreach. It elevates due process from a procedural checklist to a living constitutional mandate, binding upon all State authorities.
Sources
- Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana & Anr Criminal Appeal No ____ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No 13320 of 2024), SC India, 7 February 2025 https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=432932024&type=j&order_date=2025-02-07&from=latest_judgements_order accessed 27 May 2025.
- Constitution of India (Government of India 1950) as provided under Article 22(1), 22(2), and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15240/1/constitution_of_india.pdf accessed 27 May 2025.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (No 2 of 1974, India), ss 41, 50, 50A, 57 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15272/1/the_code_of_criminal_procedure%2C_1973.pdf accessed 27 May 2025.
- Law Commission of India, 177th Report on Law Relating to Arrest (1999) https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022081021.pdf accessed 27 May 2025.
