Case Summary: Vihaan Kumar V. State of Haryana & Anr. [2025 INSC 162]

1. Abstract 

The case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr was decided by a two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on February 7, 2025. This case delivered a definite strong judgement stating that constitutional safeguards are not mere administrative formalities but are absolute, mandatory rights. It strengthens these constitutional safeguards against unlawful arrest. The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution as he was not communicated with the grounds of arrest, not produced before the Magistrate within prescribed time and given inhuman treatment by being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed.

2. Introduction 

The case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana throws light on the significant issue of the right of an arrested person to be informed about the grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), 1973 (now Section 47 of  BNSS- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) . It states that no arrested person should be detained in custody without being informed the grounds of arrest. Such information must be imparted directly to the arrested person i.e., informing the person’s friends or relatives cannot be used as an excuse for not informing the arrested person itself and it should be said or informed to such a person in a language that he\she understands and is meaningful. This judgement also condemned the treatment which was imparted to Vihaan Kumar while he was hospitalised i.e., he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed violating his right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Case Details

• Case Name: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr
• Citation: 2025 INSC 162
• Court: Supreme Court of India 
• Bench: Justice Abhay S.Oka, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh 
• Date of Judgement: February 7, 2025
• Relevant Provisions:

1. Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Right to be informed the grounds of arrest,
2. Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, including dignity,
3. Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS)- Duty to communicate grounds of arrest  

• Appellant: Vihaan Kumar
• Respondent: State of Haryana 

4. Facts of the Case 

A FIR (First Information Report) was registered on 25th March, 2023 under Section 409, 420,467,468 and 471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding serious financial and document related offences. Vihaan Kumar, the petitioner was accused of fraud by Games Kraft Technologies’ CEO. On 10th June, 2024, he was arrested in Gurgram, Haryana by the Haryana Police at his office but he was not informed the grounds of arrest violating Article 22 (1) and Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS). After his arrest, he was taken to the DLF Police Station and was only produced before the Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon only on 11th June, 2024. 

During the custody, the petitioner, Vihaan Kumar was hospitalised at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to his bed, which was violation of Article 21. Kumar filed a writ petition in 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. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in it’s judgement on 30th August, 2024 dismissed and rejected the petition as it di8d not find any such constitutional violation holding that the police followed proper procedure of and that the 24 hour rule was not violated. Being dissatisfied, Kumar appealed to the Supreme Court and claimed the violation of his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and ruling in favour ordered his immediate release. 

5. Issues Involved

1. Whether there was a violation of the fundamental right under Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC due to non communication of grounds of arrest? 
2. Whether such violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution makes the arrest and the subsequent judicial remand invalid?
3. Whether the appellant was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, as mandated under Article 22(2) and Section 57 of CrPC? 
4. Whether chaining and handcuffing the appellant to a hospital bed amount to violation of right to dignity under Article 21?
5. Whether upholding legal safeguards by the Magistrate by ensuring compliance with Article 22(1) during remand is essential?.  

6. Arguments of the Parties

• Appellant’s Arguments (Vihaan Kumar)

1. The counsel on behalf of the appellant brought to attention and pointed out that the appellant was not informed about the grounds of arrest neither verbally nor in writing, hence violating Section 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of CrPC. 
2. The counsel pointed out that informing the appellant’s wife is not sufficient and cannot substitute for communicating the grounds to the accused himself.
3. By citing Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which stated that meaningful and effective communication of arrest grounds as mandatory and essential, the counsel submitted that failure of respondent to comply with the mandate of Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC, the arrest of the appellant is rendered to be illegal.
4. It was argued that there was violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, producing the arrestee before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours as the appellant in this case was not produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest and the counsel stated that the arrest took place on 10th June, 2024 at 10:30 pm and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 11th June, 2024 at 3:30 pm thus violating the 24 hour rule.
5. It was argued that any procedural breach in communicating arrest grounds makes the arrest and subsequent remand invalid as per constitutional and judicial standards.

• Respondent’s Arguments (State of Haryana)

1. The Respondent’s counsel argued that oral communication of grounds of arrest is sufficient as per Article 22(1) or Section 50 of CrPC and a written document is not legally mandatory.
2. The counsel claimed that there was procedural compliance which was done via diary entries in the case of diary which constituted of the date, time of arrest, arrest memo, and content of the remand report.
3. The counsel put forward that the accused was arrested on 10th June at 6:00 pm , the diary entry being done at 6:10 and produced before the Magistrate n 11th June at 3:30pm.i.e., within 24 hours of arrest therefore complying with all requirements as well as Article 22(2) of the Constitution. 
4. It was also claimed by the counsel that on the basis of lawful remand orders and the filing of a charge sheet, the custody of the accused was continued making his detention valid. 
5. It was also contended that delay in raising the Article 22(1) violation undermines the appellant’s claim.

7. Judgement of Supreme Court 

The two judge bench delivered a remarkable landmark judgement which is as follows:-

1. The Court declared that Article 22(1) of the Constitution is a fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so s to serve the intended purpose, the Supreme Court found that the appellant, Vihaan Kumar was not informed the grounds of arrest in any meaningful manner. It was held that there was violation of  Article 22(1) and such non communication of the grounds of directly to the accused rendered the arrest to be unconstitutional and illegal. Communicating the grounds to his wife or merely recording vague entries in the case diary or arrest memo, does not satisfy the constitutional or statutory requirement.
2. The Court held that if the arrest is suffering from invalidity from the very beginning i.e., from the initial stages, then even filling of a charge sheet, subsequent court orders, any judicial order which is remanding the accused to custody is also considered to be legally invalid. The court thus ordered Vihaan Kumar i.e., the appellant to be released immediately but also classified that the ongoing trial and merits of the charge sheet will continue to remain unaffected by the invalidity vof the custody.
3. The Supreme Court did not give any final factual finding as to whether the time o9f arrest was 10:30 am or 6:00 pm as violation of Article 22(1) was enough to invalidate or vitiate the arrest. 
4. The issue of treatment of the accused while in custody which is the accused being handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed was brought up in the court to which the Court held such conduct to be a violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. The Court declared the when an arrested person is produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made as non-compliance will render4 the arrest illegal.

8. Ratio Decidendi

The primary legal principles established are as follows:-

1. Mandatory Communication of grounds of arrest to arrestee: It is mandatory and a fundamental right under Article 22(1) to inform the arrestee about the grounds of arrest. In this regard, mere communication with the spouse or relative is not sufficient.
2. Mode and meaningfulness of communication: Communication of legal grounds must include imparting of the required knowledge of the basic facts in understandable language so that it is understood by the accused in order to avid any further factual dispute.
3. Idealness of written communication but not mandatory: written communication is preferred but not strictly mandatory.
4. Burden of Proof: In case of non-communication, the burden of proof falls on the investigating Officer/ Agency.
5. Violation of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and remand: In case of violation of Article of Article 22(1), the arrest and subsequent judicial custody/ remand orders are rendered to be illegal regardless of charge-sheet being filed.
6. Duty of Magistrate: It is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure compliance with Article 22(1) and related safeguards when remanding an accused. 
7. Violation of Article 21: The act of handcuffing and chaining the accused in a hospital bed is considered a violation of right to life and dignity.

9. Final Decision 

In the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India decided and declared that the arrest of the appellant to be illegal as the police failed to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest. Due to this, the Court ordered his immediate release.

10. Critical Analysis

• Reinforcement of Constitutional Rights: The Court reaffirmed that Article 22(1) is not just a procedural formality but a real constitutional guarantee. It stated that an arrested person must be directly informed of the grounds for their arrest in a clear and understandable way. Simply informing a family member of recording the grounds in official documents is not enough. This interpretation strengthens the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest. 
• Strengthening personal liberty: The judgement shows that personal liberty is fundamental in a democratic society. By declaring that failing to communicate the grounds for arrest makes the arrest illegal, the Court emphasized that procedural safeguards should not be overlooked, even in serious economic offences. This approach aligns with the belief that the rule of law is more important than administrative convenience.
• Protection of Human Dignity: A significant part of the judgement is it’s condemnation of handcuffing and chaining an accused person t a hospital bed. The Court recognized this treatment as a violation of the right to dignity under Article 21 and directed the State to prevent similar situations. This broadens constitutional protection to include the humane treatment of individuals of individuals in custody. 
• Increased Police Accountability: The ruling shifts the responsibility to investigating agencies to prove that they met constitutional requirements. Police authorities must keep proper records and ensure the arrested person understands the reasons for their arrest. This improves transparency and discourages arbitrary police actions.
• Judicial Oversight: The decision also emphasizes the duty of Magistrates to check whether constitutional safeguards have been followed before authorizing detention. This increases judicial scrutiny at the remand stage and prevents automatic approval of police actions.

11. Conclusion 

This case of Vihaan Kumar n. State of Haryana with it’s strong judgement impacts the other lower courts with it’s decision forming a binding precedent which includes not only the consequence of violation of Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS) but also puts forward the duties of Magistrates to uphold, look into and protect the constitutional safeguards throughout the arrest and remand procedures. Additionally, it also upholds the law of protection of dignity under Article 21 by condemning the act of handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed. Adherence to the rules, laws and way of conduct by public authorities is also established therefore preventing violations of Article 21 and 22.

12. References

1. Indian Kanoon, ‘Vihaan Kumar vs The State Of Haryana’(7 February 2025) https://indiankanoon.org  
2. Aastha Rathi, ‘Case Comment: Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana’ Volume 4 Issue 4 Journal of Legal Research and Judicial Sciences https://jlrjs.com
3. Aashayein Law Education Centre, ‘Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 169’ https://www.alec.co.in
4. Drihsti Judiciary, ‘Vihaan Kumar V. State Of Haryana & Anr. (2025)’ (08 July 2025) https://www.drishtijudiciary.com