VIHAAN KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1). It found that the police had not told the appellant his grounds (telling his wife, a remand report, an arrest memo and a vague case-diary entry did not count), declared the arrest vitiated, and ordered his release. It held that a later chargesheet does not cure the illegality, and directed Haryana to stop the practice of handcuffing and chaining accused persons to hospital beds.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's arrest without warrant was vitiated because he was not informed of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Who bears the burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1), and what amounts to compliance.
3. Whether later remand orders, the filing of a chargesheet or cognizance cure an arrest made in violation of Article 22(1).
4. Whether handcuffing the appellant and chaining him to a hospital bed violated Article 21.

Provisions considered

• Article 22(1), Constitution of IndiaThe grounds of arrest must be told to the arrestee as soon as may be, meaningfully and in a language he understands; writing is not required but is advisable. Non-compliance vitiates the arrest and the remand orders, and the burden of proving compliance lies on the police. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 28)
• Article 21, Constitution of IndiaArticle 22(1) forms part of the procedure established by law, so arrest without informing grounds also violates personal liberty; handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed violated his right to live with dignity. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16, 21, 29)
• Section 50(1) (Section 47, BNSS), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The option in Section 50(1) to communicate full particulars of the offence or other grounds cannot dilute Article 22(1); the statutory requirement is additional to the constitutional one, and the same applies to Section 47 of the BNSS. (¶¶ 9, 19)
• Section 41(1)(ba) (Section 35(1)(c), BNSS), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973For offences punishable with more than seven years, the police may arrest without warrant only on credible information and a reason to believe that the person committed the offence; arrest cannot be made casually. (¶¶ 7, 8)
• Section 50A (Section 48, BNSS), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The State relied on having explained the grounds to the appellant's wife; the lead opinion held that telling the wife is not compliance with Article 22(1). The concurring opinion added that grounds should also be communicated to the relatives or friends named by the arrestee. (¶ 24)

Held

• Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a formality. Sufficient knowledge of the basic facts making up the grounds must be effectively communicated in a language the arrestee understands, so that he can consult a lawyer and seek release. Written grounds are not mandatory, but the Pankaj Bansal suggestion to give them in writing merits consideration. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 21)
• Non-compliance with Article 22(1) also violates Article 21 and vitiates the arrest and all later remand orders; the person cannot remain in custody. Filing a chargesheet or taking cognizance does not validate the arrest, though the investigation, chargesheet and trial are not themselves vitiated. (¶¶ 14, 16, 21)
• When the arrestee pleads that grounds were not communicated, the burden of proving compliance lies on the police. If the police rely on a diary entry, it must itself record what the grounds were, in a contemporaneous record. (¶¶ 18, 21, 31)
• Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS) cannot dilute Article 22(1): the 'other grounds' in Section 50(1) are distinct from the grounds of arrest in Article 22(1), and the statutory duty is in addition to it. (¶ 19)
• A Magistrate before whom an arrestee is produced for remand must check whether Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards were complied with. Once a violation is established, the court must order release forthwith, and this is a ground for bail even where statutory restrictions on bail exist. (¶¶ 20, 21)
• On the facts, the police's reply before the High Court did not even plead that grounds were communicated. Telling the appellant's wife was an afterthought and was not compliance. Grounds written in a remand report (which is not served on the accused), an arrest memo that only records the fact of arrest, and an unpleaded, vague case-diary entry did not prove compliance. The High Court erred in equating information about the arrest with the grounds of arrest and in calling the plea bald. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31)
• Handcuffing the appellant and chaining him to a hospital bed was a violation of his right to dignity under Article 21. The question of a breach of Article 22(2) was left undecided, as was whether the appellant could be re-arrested. (¶¶ 17, 29, 32)
• In a concurring opinion, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. added that, for the safeguard to be meaningful, the grounds of arrest should be communicated in writing not only to the arrestee but also to the relatives, friends or persons nominated by him under Section 50A CrPC, failing which the arrest may be rendered illegal.

Result

Appeal allowed; the appellant's arrest of 10.06.2024 declared vitiated and his immediate release ordered, without affecting the merits of the chargesheet and pending case; the appellant to attend trial and furnish a bond under Section 91 BNSS within two weeks; Haryana to issue guidelines against handcuffing or chaining accused persons to hospital beds and to secure strict compliance with Article 22; copy to the State Home Secretary.