Case Study: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & anr.

Citation: SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024

Date of Judgment: 6^th February, 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Abhay S. Oka (J) and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (J)

Facts

• The case revolves around the arrest of the appellant, Vihaan Kumar, in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the second respondent.
• According to the appellant, he was arrested on June 10, 2024, at around 10:30 AM from his office located at HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana. He was taken to DLF Police Station, Sector 29, Gurugram, and subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM. The appellant contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest at the time of detention, which amounted to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The State of Haryana, in its defense, argued that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest and that the details of the arrest were recorded in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary. The police further relied on an entry in the case diary stating that the appellant was informed of the grounds for his arrest at 6:10 PM on June 10, 2024.
• The case also brought to light a grave violation of human rights when it was revealed that after his arrest, the appellant was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The Supreme Court took note of this shocking treatment and issued a notice to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak. The hospital authorities later admitted that the appellant had indeed been restrained while undergoing treatment. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the police officers responsible, and they were placed under suspension.

Decision of the High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, dismissed the appellant Vihaan Kumar’s plea challenging the legality of his arrest. The appellant had approached the High Court, arguing that his arrest was unconstitutional as he was never informed of the grounds of arrest, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The appellant further contended that the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary merely recorded the fact of his arrest but failed to specify whether he was informed of the reasons for his arrest.

The State of Haryana, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, opposed the petition, arguing that the appellant’s wife had been informed about his arrest. It further contended that the remand report submitted before the Magistrate contained details about the arrest and that the appellant was arrested only after informing him of the grounds of arrest, as per an entry made in the police case diary.

The High Court, while analyzing the contentions, observed that the arrest memo contained sufficient details, including the name of the arrested person, his address, particulars of the FIR, the sections under which he was charged, the place, date, and time of arrest, the name of the arresting officer, and the details of the person to whom information about the arrest was given. The court equated this information with compliance under Article 22(1), ruling that since the wife of the appellant was informed of the arrest, there was no violation of constitutional rights.

The court dismissed the appellant's contention that he had not been personally informed of the grounds of his arrest. It stated that the mere allegation of non-communication of the grounds of arrest is a bald and unsubstantiated claim. The court also relied on the police case diary entry, which stated that the appellant had been informed of the grounds of arrest. Even though this was not explicitly mentioned in the arrest memo, the court found no reason to disbelieve the police's claim.

The High Court also held that an arrest memo is distinct from a remand report but, when read together, they provide a comprehensive record of an arrest. It ruled that the mention of grounds of arrest in the remand report satisfied the legal requirement and that there was no legal mandate requiring the grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing. The court observed that the remand order passed by the Magistrate further reinforced the legality of the arrest, as the appellant was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, in compliance with Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of CrPC.

In response to the appellant’s claim that he was chained to a hospital bed while receiving treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak, the High Court refused to intervene, stating that this was a separate issue that should be addressed through departmental inquiry rather than in a habeas corpus petition. The court took note of the State’s submission that an internal inquiry had already been initiated, and the officers involved had been suspended.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, ruled that the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was illegal and unconstitutional, as it violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, held that the State of Haryana failed to prove that the appellant was informed of the grounds of his arrest, which is a mandatory constitutional requirement. The court emphasized that merely informing the appellant’s wife about his arrest did not fulfill the obligation under Article 22(1), as the arrested person himself must be directly informed. The court also rejected the State’s reliance on the remand report and case diary, noting that mentioning the grounds of arrest in official documents is not the same as communicating them to the accused in a meaningful manner.

The court criticized the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reasoning, which had equated informing the appellant’s wife with compliance under Article 22(1). The High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s plea on the ground that his claim was a bald allegation was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court held that once an arrested person alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden shifts to the State to prove otherwise. Since the State failed to provide contemporaneous records proving compliance, the arrest stood vitiated. The court reiterated its ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India[1] and Prabir Purkayastha v. State[2], reaffirming that an arrest made in violation of Article 22(1) is unconstitutional and renders subsequent remand orders void.

Apart from the violation of constitutional safeguards, the Supreme Court strongly condemned the inhumane treatment of the appellant while in custody. It took serious note of the fact that the appellant was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The court ruled that such treatment is a gross violation of human dignity and the fundamental right to life under Article 21. Directing the State of Haryana to issue new guidelines to prevent such human rights violations, the court stated that chaining an accused person to a hospital bed is illegal, inhumane, and unconstitutional.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment and ordered the immediate release of the appellant. The court further ruled that violations of Article 22(1) render an arrest invalid, and any remand orders based on such an arrest are also unconstitutional. Additionally, the State of Haryana was directed to ensure strict compliance with Article 22(1) in future arrests. This landmark ruling reaffirms the importance of constitutional safeguards and personal liberty, ensuring that no individual is deprived of their rights without due process of law.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Was the appellant informed of the grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution?

No

The Supreme Court explicitly held that the appellant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The State of Haryana claimed that the appellant was informed at 6:10 PM on June 10, 2024, as recorded in the police diary. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the diary entry was vague, not contemporaneous, and was an afterthought, as it was never pleaded before the High Court. Court in paragraph 27 held that

“Reliance was placed in this regard on the case diary entry of 10th June 2024 at 6.10 p.m., which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. This was not pleaded before the High Court as well as in this Court in the reply of 1st respondent. This is an afterthought. Considering the stand taken in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court, only on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary, we cannot accept that compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred. No contemporaneous documents have been put on record wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted. Therefore, reliance placed on the diary entries is completely irrelevant.”

The court further ruled that merely informing the appellant’s wife does not fulfill the constitutional obligation, as Article 22(1) requires that the arrested person himself be informed of the grounds of arrest. The court also examined the arrest memo and remand report and found that neither contained the grounds of arrest, reinforcing the conclusion that the appellant was not informed as required by law. Court in Paragraph 26 observed that

“The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. We have perused the arrest memo in the present case. The same contains only the information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.”

Moreover, the court emphasized that when an accused claims non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proof shifts to the State. In this case, the State failed to provide any evidence, such as a written record or contemporaneous document to show that the appellant was informed of the reasons for his arrest. Court in Para 21(c) observed that

“When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);”

Further Court in Paragraph number 28 observed that

“Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.”.

Thus, the court concluded that the arrest was unconstitutional and violated the appellant’s fundamental rights.

2. Does mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report or arrest memo satisfy the requirement under Article 22(1)?

No

The Supreme Court categorically held that mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report or arrest memo does not fulfill the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). The court clarified that Article 22(1) requires direct and immediate communication of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person, not just documentation in official records court in Paragraph 25 held that

“A contention has been raised in the written argument that the grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. This contention has been raised for the first time in written submissions before this Court. This is not pleaded in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court. The police submit a remand report before the learned Magistrate for seeking remand without serving a copy thereof to the arrestee. The reason is that the Police cannot divulge the details of the investigation to the accused till the final report is filed. Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest”.

The court examined the remand report and found that it was submitted to the Magistrate, not to the appellant. Since the accused is not provided with a copy of the remand report at the time of arrest, it cannot serve as a substitute for informing him of the grounds of arrest. Similarly, the arrest memo only records administrative details such as the time, place, and sections applied in the FIR, but it does not contain the specific reasons for the arrest. Court in Paragraph 26 held that

“The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone”

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the purpose of Article 22(1) is to enable the arrested person to seek legal counsel and challenge the arrest if necessary. If the grounds of arrest are only recorded in the remand report or police records and not communicated to the accused, the constitutional safeguard is rendered meaningless. Court in Paragraph 21(b) court held that

“The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved”.

Thus, the court concluded that neither the remand report nor the arrest memo satisfied the constitutional requirement of informing the appellant of the grounds of arrest.

3. Can reliance on a police diary entry be used as proof that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest?

No

The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the State’s reliance on a police diary entry to prove that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest. The State argued that an entry in the police diary at 6:10 PM on June 10, 2024, recorded that the appellant was informed of the reasons for his arrest. However, the court found this claim to be an afterthought, as it was not raised before the High Court or in the State’s initial reply before the Supreme Court. Court in Paragraph 27 held that

“Reliance was placed in this regard on the case diary entry of 10th June 2024 at 6.10 p.m., which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. This was not pleaded before the High Court as well as in this Court in the reply of 1st respondent. This is an afterthought. Considering the stand taken in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court, only on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary, we cannot accept that compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred. No contemporaneous documents have been put on record wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted. Therefore, reliance placed on the diary entries is completely irrelevant”.

The court ruled that a mere entry in the police diary, without a corresponding contemporaneous record specifying the actual grounds of arrest, cannot serve as proof of compliance with Article 22(1). It emphasized that the grounds of arrest must preexist before they are communicated to the accused, and there must be a proper record explicitly stating what those grounds were. Court in Paragraph 18 observed that

“In the present case, 1st respondent relied upon an entry in the case diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. For the reasons which will follow hereafter, we are rejecting the argument made by the 1st respondent. If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. Therefore, in a given case, even assuming that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary, there must be a contemporaneous record, which records what the grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police”.

The court further noted that when an arrested person alleges a violation of Article 22(1), the burden shifts to the State to prove compliance, and a vague diary entry does not satisfy this burden.

Additionally, the court observed that even if a police officer makes an entry in the case diary stating that the accused was informed, such a record must include the specific grounds of arrest and not merely a statement that the accused was “informed”. The absence of any specific mention of the grounds of arrest in the diary entry made it unreliable as evidence of compliance with constitutional requirements (Para 27). The court ultimately held that reliance on the police diary was completely irrelevant and insufficient to justify the arrest.

[1] (2024) 7 SCC 576.

[2] (2024) 8 SCC 254.

Download