Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.

1. CASE DETAILS

Citation: 2025 INSC 162; [2025] 2 S.C.R. 424; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: 7 February 2025

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024)

Relevant Statutes and Provisions: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty); Article 22(1) and 22(2) (Protection Against Arrest and Detention) of the Constitution of India; Section 50 and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC); Section 47, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

2.  ​BRIEF FACTS

Vihaan Kumar, the appellant, was accused of financial fraud in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023 dated 25 March 2023, registered at DLF Police Station, Section 29, Gurugram, Haryana, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was filed by the CEO of Games Kraft Technologies.

The appellant was arrested on 10 June 2024 at approximately 10:30 AM at his office premises at HUDA City Centre, Gurugram. According to the appellant, he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest at the time of detention. He was subsequently taken to DLF Police Station and produced before the Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurugram only on 11 June 2024 at 3:30 PM, more than 24 hours after his arrest, in apparent violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC.

During the course of his custody, the appellant was admitted to PGIMS Hospital, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. Photographs of this treatment were submitted before the Court as evidence. The Medical Superintendent of PGIMS later admitted to the restraint, following which a departmental inquiry was initiated and the concerned police officers were suspended.

The appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking release on the ground that his arrest was patently illegal. The High Court, by its order dated 30 August 2024, dismissed the petition, characterising the allegation of non-supply of grounds of arrest as a “bald allegation” and relying on the State’s submissions. The appellant thereafter challenged this order before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

3.  ​ISSUES INVOLVED

• Whether the appellant was informed of the grounds of his arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and if not, whether such failure rendered the arrest illegal.
• Whether the inclusion of arrest details in the remand report, arrest memo, or police case diary constitutes sufficient compliance with the constitutional obligation under Article 22(1).
• Whether informing the arrested person’s spouse of the grounds of arrest, instead of the

arrested person himself, satisfies the requirements of Article 22(1).

• Whether handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed violated his fundamental right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Whether a subsequent chargesheet or remand order can cure or validate an otherwise illegal arrest.

4.  ​ARGUMENTS

4.1 ​Petitioner / Appellant (Vihaan Kumar)

• The appellant contended that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest at any point during or immediately after his arrest, in direct violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).
• He argued that informing his wife about the arrest did not constitute compliance with Article 22(1), which requires the grounds to be communicated to the arrested person himself in a language he understands.
• The appellant submitted that he was produced before the Magistrate more than 24 hours after his arrest, violating Article 22(2) and Section 57 of the CrPC.
• It was further contended that the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to a hospital bed was a flagrant violation of his fundamental right to dignity and personal liberty under Article 21, contrary to the guidelines laid down in prior Supreme Court decisions.
• Counsel (Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan) argued that a subsequent chargesheet or remand cannot retroactively validate an arrest that was unconstitutional at its inception.

4.2 ​Respondent / State of Haryana

• The State maintained that the arrest was lawful and that all due procedures had been followed by the arresting officers.
• It was contended that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant at 6:10 PM on 10 June 2024, as evidenced by an entry in the police case diary.
• The State argued that the appellant’s wife was duly informed of the arrest, and that the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary collectively documented the details of the offence for which the appellant was arrested.
• Counsel (Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Basant ) submitted that the High Court had correctly dismissed the petition after examining the case diaries, and that the arrest memo contained full particulars of the offence, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 50 of the CrPC.
• It was further argued that subsequent judicial remand orders had cured any procedural irregularity, and that granting bail was not justified in light of the serious charges

5.  ​JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI

5.1  The Judgment

The Supreme Court, in separate but concurring opinions authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Court held that the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was unconstitutional and illegal, as the State had failed to demonstrate through any contemporaneous documentary evidence that the grounds of arrest were directly communicated to the appellant at the time of his arrest. The Court noted that a vague entry in the police case diary was insufficient to establish compliance with Article 22(1), particularly in the absence of corroborating evidence.

The Court further held that informing the appellant’s wife of the arrest did not satisfy the constitutional requirement. Article 22(1) imposes a duty to communicate grounds directly to the arrested individual, not to any third party. The burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) lies squarely on the investigating officer and the State.

On the issue of handcuffing, the Court strongly condemned the act of chaining the appellant to a hospital bed as a shocking violation of his fundamental right to dignity, which forms an integral part of Article 21. It issued directions to the State of Haryana to formulate guidelines to prevent recurrence of such custodial abuse.

The Court also held that an illegal arrest cannot be cured by the subsequent filing of a chargesheet or the issuance of a remand order. The illegality at the inception of the arrest vitiates all subsequent proceedings arising from it. The appellant was ordered to be immediately released.

5.2  Ratio Decidendi

The ratio of the judgment is threefold:

• Informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest under Article 22(1) is not a mere procedural formality but a non-derogable constitutional mandate. The communication must be made directly to the arrested person, in a language they understand, with sufficient particularity to enable them to seek legal redress.
• The burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) lies on the In the absence of contemporaneous documentation or direct evidence, the mere recording of an entry in a police diary is insufficient to discharge this burden.
• An arrest rendered illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) cannot be retrospectively validated by subsequent judicial remand or Magistrates are constitutionally obligated to verify compliance with Article 22(1) before authorising remand.

6.  ​OBITER DICTA

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in his concurring opinion, observed that the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest has been similarly incorporated into the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and other special statutes, reinforcing its universal applicability across criminal law. He emphasised that Magistrates must not act as a mere rubber stamp in remand proceedings, but must actively inquire into whether the accused has been informed of the grounds of arrest before granting custody to the police or jail.

The Court also made observations regarding the inhumane treatment of undertrials in India, calling upon state governments to sensitise law enforcement personnel about the constitutional limits of custodial authority and the fundamental dignity owed to every person, irrespective of the gravity of allegations against them.

7.  ​FINAL DECISION

• The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was set
• The arrest of Vihaan Kumar was declared unconstitutional and
• The appellant was ordered to be immediately
• The State of Haryana was directed to issue guidelines to prevent the illegal handcuffing and chaining of accused persons, particularly in healthcare settings.
• A copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Home Secretary of the State of Haryana for compliance and circulation.

8.  ​CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana is a significant reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards in criminal procedure and deserves appreciation for several reasons. At the same time, it also raises important questions about institutional accountability and the enforcement of fundamental rights at the ground level.

First, the decision correctly reinforces the principle that Article 22(1) is not merely a procedural technicality but a substantive constitutional guarantee rooted in the rule of law. The right to be informed of the grounds for arrest is foundational to the right of an accused to seek bail, engage legal counsel, and challenge the basis of their detention. By holding that this right attaches immediately at the moment of arrest and cannot be deferred or delegated, the Court correctly aligns itself with the standard articulated in earlier landmark decisions such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2024).

Second, the Court’s ruling that the burden of proof lies on the State to demonstrate compliance with Article 22(1) is a meaningful procedural shift. Historically, accused persons challenging the legality of arrests have faced difficulty in discharging the burden of proving what did not happen— i.e., that they were not informed. By placing this burden on the State, the Court acknowledges the inherent asymmetry in information and power between police officers and arrestees, thereby strengthening the protective function of fundamental rights.

Third, the Court’s condemnation of the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to a hospital bed is morally and legally necessary. The prohibition on handcuffing, except in exceptional circumstances, has long been established in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Despite this, custodial abuse of the kind witnessed in this case persists, suggesting a systemic failure of accountability. The direction to the State of Haryana to formulate guidelines is a welcome step, though critics may argue that the issuance of guidelines, absent stronger monitoring mechanisms, may prove inadequate as a deterrent.

A point of some complexity arises from the Court’s holding that subsequent remand orders do not cure an initial illegal arrest. While this principle is necessary to prevent ex post facto legalisation of unconstitutional state action, it places Magistrates under a heightened duty of inquiry that may not always be practicable within the time pressures of busy trial courts. The judgment implicitly calls for a reform of remand proceedings to include a mandatory inquiry into Article 22(1) compliance, which would require legislative or rule-based implementation to be effective in practice.

Importantly, the judgment is consistent with the broader trajectory of Article 21 jurisprudence post-Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which established that any procedure depriving a person of liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. Vihaan Kumar extends this principle to the specific context of arrest procedure, ensuring that the manner in which the State exercises its coercive power remains tethered to constitutional values.

In conclusion, the judgment is a timely and important contribution to the protection of civil

liberties in India’s criminal justice system. It sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies that compliance with constitutional safeguards is not optional, and that courts will not hesitate to declare arrests unconstitutional where fundamental rights have been violated. The long-term impact of this ruling will depend, however, on the extent to which its principles are internalised by police institutions and enforced by Magistrates across the country.