Case Summary: Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana CRL No. 13320/2024

• Title: Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana crl no 13320/2024
• Court: Supreme court of India
• Citation: (2024) INS 162
• Bench: Justice Abhay S.Oka.Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh   
• Date of judgment: 7/2/2025
• Key provisions:

1. Section 409 IPC: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent.
2. Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
3. Section 467 IPC: Forgery of valuable security, will or other important legal documents.
4. Section 468 IPC: Forgery committed specifically for the purpose of cheating.
5. Section 471 IPC: Using a forged document as genuine with knowledge of its forgery.
6. Section 120-B IPC: Criminal conspiracy to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
7. Section 41 CrPC – Power of police to arrest without warrant
8. Section 50 CrPC – Communication of grounds of arrest
9. Article 22(1) – Constitutional safeguard at the time of arrest
10. Section 57 CrPC – No detention beyond 24 hours
11. Article 22(2) – Production before Magistrate within 24 hours
12. Article 21 – Right to life and dignity during custody

BRIEF FACTS

• Vihaan Kumar was implicated in FIR No. 121 of 2023 dated 25 March 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.
• He was arrested on 10 June 2024 at Gurugram, Haryana.
• The appellant claimed he was arrested at about 10:30 a.m. but produced before the Magistrate only on 11 June 2024 at 3:30 p.m.
• He alleged violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 CrPC for not being produced within 24 hours.
• During custody, he was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak.
• While hospitalized, he was handcuffed and chained to his bed.
• The Supreme Court later held this act to be a violation of Article 21 and the right to dignity.
• The appellant’s main grievance was that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, orally or in writing.
• The State contended that the appellant’s wife was informed of the arrest.
• The State further argued that case diary entries, arrest memos and remand reports complied with legal requirements.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court, by order dated 30 August 2024, upheld the arrest.
• Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the failure of the arresting authority to personally communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant amounts to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether informing the grounds of arrest to a relative of the accused or mentioning them in remand papers can be treated as sufficient compliance with Article 22(1).
3. Whether the appellant’s detention and custodial treatment, including handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed, violated the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.  

ARGUMENT

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the arrest of the appellant was illegal and unconstitutional, as the mandatory safeguards provided under the Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with. It was contended that the appellant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of arrest or soon thereafter, which amounts to a clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 

The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant was neither made aware of the reasons necessitating his arrest nor provided with any written communication explaining the grounds thereof. Such non-communication renders the arrest arbitrary and unlawful. Mere preparation of arrest records or internal documentation by the police does not amount to compliance with the constitutional mandate.

It was specifically argued that although the wife of the appellant was informed about the arrest, the appellant himself was never apprised of the grounds of arrest. The learned counsel emphasized that informing a relative cannot be treated as a substitute for informing the arrested person himself, as required under Article 22(1). The constitutional right is personal to the accused and must be strictly complied with.

Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), it was submitted that communication of the grounds of arrest must be clear, effective, and meaningful, and not a mere formality. Any arrest made in violation of this requirement is rendered illegal ab initio.

The learned counsel further contended that the appellant was also not produced before the learned Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest, thereby violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Such non-compliance further vitiates the detention and renders it unconstitutional.

It was also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shri Abhimanyu, filed a status report and counter affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court; however, the same failed to establish due compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards. The burden lies upon the State to prove strict adherence to the procedure established by law, which the State has failed to discharge in the present case.

In view of the above submissions, it was urged that the arrest of the appellant being illegal and unconstitutional, the continued detention of the appellant is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The learned senior counsel for the State contended that there was no violation of the legal or constitutional requirements relating to arrest. It was submitted that the High Court had noted that the grounds of arrest were not handed over in writing; however, there is no mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution or Section 50 of the CrPC requiring the grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing. The legal requirement is satisfied if either the full particulars of the offence or the grounds of arrest are communicated to the arrestee.

It was further argued that the grounds of arrest were, in fact, orally communicated to the appellant at the time of arrest. Reliance was placed on the arrest memo, which contained details of the offence, as well as the time and date of arrest. The State also pointed out that the case diaries were placed before and examined by the High Court. An entry in the daily diary dated 10 June 2024 at 6:10 p.m. specifically recorded that the appellant was arrested after being informed of the grounds of arrest.

Additionally, it was submitted that the grounds of arrest were clearly set out in the remand report dated 11 June 2024. The State emphasized that the challenge based on alleged violation of Article 22(1) was raised after a delay of more than two months, which weakens the appellant’s claim. Lastly, it was contended that the appellant is presently in lawful custody pursuant to judicial process, and therefore no illegality survives in the arrest or subsequent detention.

JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court reiterated that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. This safeguard is not a mere formality and must be followed strictly. The Court clarified that the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest is to ensure that the arrested person understands why he has been arrested and is able to take immediate legal steps to secure his release.

The Court explained that, to make this right meaningful, the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, as already held in earlier cases such as Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha. This requirement has also been incorporated in statutory law under Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 of the BNSS).

Further, the Court emphasized that the responsibility of the arresting authority does not end with informing the arrested person alone. Under Section 50A of the CrPC, the police must also inform the friends, relatives, or any nominated person of the arrested person about the arrest and the grounds for it. This is necessary because a person in custody may not have easy access to lawyers or legal remedies, whereas relatives or friends can promptly arrange legal assistance and apply for bail.

The Court held that communicating the grounds of arrest to both the arrested person and his relatives is essential to protect the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. If this requirement is not followed, the arrest may become illegal, as it fails to satisfy the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1). 

RATIO DECENDI

1. Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. The grounds must be clearly and effectively communicated in a language the arrested person understands.
3. If non-compliance is alleged, the burden is on the investigating agency to prove that Article 22(1) was followed.
4. Failure to comply violates Articles 22(1) and 21, making the arrest and remand illegal, though investigation and trial may continue.
5. The Magistrate must verify compliance with Article 22(1) and other safeguards at the time of remand.  

OBITER DICTA

1. Mere formal or mechanical communication of the grounds of arrest is insufficient; the communication must meaningfully convey the basic facts.
2. Filing of a charge-sheet or continuation of investigation cannot cure or legitimize a prior constitutional violation under Article 22(1).
3. Judicial Magistrates should actively verify compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards at the remand stage, rather than treating remand as a routine exercise.
4. Protection of personal liberty requires strict adherence to arrest safeguards, reinforcing that procedural fairness is integral to criminal justice administration.

EFFECT OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. Arrest made without proper communication of grounds under Article 22(1) becomes illegal.
2. Subsequent remand orders passed by the court are vitiated.
3. The accused becomes entitled to release from illegal custody.
4. Investigation, filing of charge-sheet, and trial are not invalidated solely due to such illegality.
5. Investigating agencies and Magistrates are required to strictly ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards at the time of arrest and remand