Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Vihaan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024)
Decided on : 07-02-2025
Per ABHAY S. OKA, J.
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 22 and 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 41 and 50 (Sections 35 and 47 of BNSS, 2023] – Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – A police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged – There must be credible information – Before a police officer communicates grounds of arrest, grounds of arrest have to be formulated – Although there is no requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing, there is no harm if grounds of arrest are communicated in writing – Police have to balance rights of a person arrested with interests of society – Police should always scrupulously comply with requirements of Article 22 – In a given case, if mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and arrest will be rendered illegal. (Paras 8, 14 and 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 41 and 50 (Sections 35 and 47 of BNSS, 2023] – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 22(1) – Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – Requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) – Filing of charge-sheet will not validate breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) – When an arrested person is produced before Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is duty of Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made – Statutory restrictions do not affect power of court to grant bail when violation of Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution is established – In present case, shocking treatment was given to appellant by police – He was taken to hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to hospital bed – This itself is violation of fundamental right of appellant under Article 21 of Constitution – Right to live with dignity is a part of rights guaranteed under Article 21 – State Government directed to issue necessary directions to ensure that such illegalities are never committed – Appellant shall be forthwith released and set at liberty. (Paras 21, 29 and 33)
Per NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J. [Separate Assenting View]
Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 50 and 50A (Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023] – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – Purpose of communicating grounds of arrest to detenu, in addition to his relatives, is not merely a formality but to enable detained person to know reasons for his arrest but also to provide necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualizing fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution – Requirement of communicating grounds of arrest in writing is not only to arrested person, but also to friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by arrested person, so as to make mandate of Article 22(1) of Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Amongst other issues, main issue canvassed by appellant in this appeal is violation of appellant's right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.
Findings of Court:
Requirement of communicating grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The prosecution's pleading in this case primarily asserts that the arrest of the appellant was conducted in accordance with legal procedures and constitutional safeguards. The respondents contend that the grounds of arrest were properly communicated to the appellant, as evidenced by the arrest memo and case diary entries, which record the informing of the grounds of arrest at the time of detention (!) (!) (!) . They emphasize that the arrest was made based on credible information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years, which justified the arrest without a warrant under applicable legal provisions (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the respondents argue that the police followed the statutory requirements by recording reasons for arrest and maintaining case diaries that support the communication of grounds of arrest (!) (!) (!) . They maintain that the arrest was lawful and that the appellant was produced before the magistrate within the prescribed period, fulfilling procedural mandates (!) (!) .
The respondents also contend that the appellant's allegations of non-compliance with constitutional safeguards, including the failure to inform him of the grounds of arrest, are either unsubstantiated or incorrect. They highlight that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest and that the grounds of arrest were explained to her, which, according to the respondents, suffices under the law (!) (!) .
In summary, the prosecution's plea emphasizes that the arrest was made based on credible information, in compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements, and that the procedural safeguards were duly followed, rendering the arrest lawful and valid under the applicable legal framework.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arrest details and violations (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. submissions by appellant's counsel (Para 4) |
| 3. submissions by 1st respondent (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. mandatory requirement of article 22(1) (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusions drawn by the court (Para 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. factual adjudication (Para 22) |
| 7. court's criticism of high court (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. final orders of the court (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
ISSUE INVOLVED
1. Amongst other issues, the main issue canvassed by the appellant in this appeal is the violation of the appellant's right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India (for short ‘the Constitution’) as the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2. A reference to a few factual aspects would be necessary. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant was arrested in connection with first information report no.121 of 2023 dated 25th March 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). According to the appellant's case, he was arrested on 10th June 2024 at about 10.30 a.m. at his office premises on the 3rd-5th floor of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana. He was taken to DLF Police Station, Section 29, Gurugram. He was allegedly produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June 2024 at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’). The allegation is that neither in the remand report nor in the order dated 11th June 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate was the time of arrest mentioned. The FIR was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent. We may note here that, according to the case of the 1st respondent, the appellant was arrested on 10th June 2024 at 6.00 p.m. Therefore, compliance with the requirement of Article 22(2) was made.
3. There is another very serious factual aspect. The order dated 4th October 2024 passed by this Court records that after the appellant was arrested, he was hospitalised in PGIMS, Rohtak. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant produced photographs which showed that while he was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. Therefore, a notice was issued on 4th October 2024 to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, calling upon him to file an affidavit stating whether the appellant was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. The order dated 21st October 2024 records the admission of the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS that when the appellant was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed and chained to the bed. On this aspect, we may note that an affidavit was filed on 24th October 2024 by Shri Abhimanyu, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW I and II, Gurugram, Haryana. The affidavit states that the officials who were deployed to escort the appellant to PGIMS have been suspended, and a departmental inquiry was ordered against them by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 23rd October 2024.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned senior counsel, Shri Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the appellant, invited our attention to the averments made in the writ petition filed before the High Court and, particularly, the grounds therein. He pointed out that grounds A and B contain a specific averment that the appellant was not informed about the grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest, and hence, there was a violation of Section 50 of CrPC. Further, Article 22(1) has also been violated. He pointed out that even in paragraph 13, there is a specific assertion to that effect. He invited our attention to the counter affidavit/status report filed by Shri Abhimanyu, Assistant Commissioner of Po
(1) Arrest – Constitutional Safeguards – A police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged – The....
The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution, is a mandatory condition that must be adhered to, failing which the arr....
Absence of written grounds of arrest does not mandate bail absent prejudice; substantial compliance via awareness suffices in serious offences, especially pre-'henceforth' rulings.
The failure to communicate grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(1), rendering the arrest illegal and necessitating bail even amidst statutory re....
Grounds for arrest must adequately inform the arrestee of accusations to uphold constitutional protections against unlawful detention, ensuring compliance with Article 22(1).
The court reaffirmed that informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional requirement, and non-compliance invalidates the arrest and remand.
The failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal and justifying bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
