Back
ABHAY S. OKA, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Vihaan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
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
(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
