Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 7 February 2025
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Advocates:
For the Appellant: Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal
For the Respondents: Senior Counsel Basant R. (State of Haryana) and Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra (Second Respondent)
Acts and Sections Involved:
Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
Section 41 of the CrPC (now corresponding to Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Cited Judgments:
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962 SCC OnLine SC 117)
V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2024) 3 SCC 51
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., examined crucial constitutional and procedural safeguards concerning arrests made without a warrant. The case brought to light the significance of informing an accused of the grounds of their arrest, a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and addressed the treatment of an accused in custody, reinforcing the necessity of upholding human dignity under Article 21.
Factual Background
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested on 10 June 2024 at 10:30 AM in connection with an FIR alleging financial fraud under various sections of the IPC. He was taken to DLF Police Station, Gurugram, and allegedly not informed of the grounds of his arrest. He was produced before a magistrate only on 11 June 2024 at 3:30 PM, which, according to the appellant, violated Article 22(2) and Section 57 of the CrPC.
Another disturbing aspect was that the appellant was hospitalized after his arrest and was found to have been handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed, a practice that the Court unequivocally condemned as a violation of Article 21.
Legal Issues Addressed
Whether the appellant’s arrest was unconstitutional due to non-communication of the grounds of arrest
Whether the appellant’s detention beyond 24 hours was illegal under Article 22(2) and CrPC provisions
Whether the treatment of the appellant in police custody violated his fundamental rights under Article 21
Key Findings of the Court
1. Violation of Article 22(1): Communication of Grounds of Arrest
The Court reiterated that under Article 22(1), any person arrested must be informed of the grounds of their arrest in a meaningful manner. The prosecution's contention that the accused’s wife was informed of the reasons for arrest was rejected as non-compliance with constitutional requirements.
"Communication of the grounds of arrest to the wife of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1)."
The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, holding that grounds of arrest must be conveyed in a language the accused understands and ideally in writing. It held that the burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) rests upon the arresting authority.
2. Violation of Article 22(2): Production Before Magistrate Within 24 Hours
The appellant was arrested on 10 June 2024 but produced before a magistrate only on 11 June 2024 at 3:30 PM, which allegedly exceeded the constitutional mandate. While the police argued that the time was within permissible limits, the Court emphasized the strict interpretation of the 24-hour rule, citing Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and holding that any deviation must be justified with exceptional reasons.
3. Inhumane Treatment and Violation of Article 21
The appellant was found to have been handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, a practice strongly condemned by the Court. The judgment reaffirmed the dignity of individuals in custody and held:
"The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21."
It directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines to prevent similar incidents and initiate disciplinary action against the responsible officers.
Procedural Guidelines Laid Down by the Supreme Court
Communication of Grounds of Arrest: The grounds must be explicitly conveyed to the accused in a language they understand, preferably in writing.
Burden of Proof on Police: If an arrestee challenges the legality of the arrest, the police must prove compliance with constitutional mandates.
Judicial Scrutiny on Production Before Magistrates: Magistrates must ensure strict adherence to Article 22(2) and reject cases where delay is unexplained.
Prohibition of Handcuffing and Chaining of Accused Persons: States must issue guidelines preventing the inhumane treatment of detainees.
Impact of the Judgment
This judgment is a significant step in reinforcing procedural safeguards during arrests and protecting individual liberties against arbitrary police actions. It reiterates that non-compliance with Article 22(1) and 22(2) renders an arrest illegal, thereby empowering courts to grant bail in cases of procedural violations, regardless of statutory restrictions.
"When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused."
The ruling also serves as a warning against custodial misconduct, reinforcing that handcuffing and chaining an accused is an affront to human dignity and a clear breach of Article 21.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana is a landmark ruling that underscores the fundamental principles of personal liberty, procedural fairness, and human dignity. It provides a definitive roadmap for law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards while making arrests. This case will likely have far-reaching implications on future criminal law jurisprudence in India, reaffirming the necessity of due process as the bedrock of justice.
Comentarios