Background:

In the present case, the petitioner, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested by Haryana Police from his office in Gurugram in connection with FIR No. 121/2023, alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. He was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, an apparent of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Sec. 57 CrPC (now Sec. 58 BNSS).

He also contended that he was not informed about the grounds of arrest, breaching Article 22(1). The State relies on case diary entries, the arrest memo, and alleged communication with his wife claims the petitioner disputes. While under treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak, he was allegedly handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed- conduct deemed inhuman and violative of Article 21 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld his arrest, accepting police claims without scrutinizing these procedural violations, leading Vihaan to seek relief in the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was unconstitutional due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution- namely, the failure to meaningfully and directly inform the accused of the grounds of his arrest and whether mere diary entries, arrest memos, or notifying relatives sufficed to satisfy this fundamental requirement?

• In cases of constitutional violation under Article 22(1), can a court still grant bail even if the offense is non-bailable?

Observations:

The Supreme Court observed that:

• • The Court emphasized that informing a person of the reasons for their arrest is a fundamental constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), not a mere formality. Simply announcing the arrest without explaining the grounds is insufficient.
• • The Court ruled that the failure to inform Vihaan Kumar of the reasons for his arrest constituted a breach of Article 22(1), thereby making the arrest unlawful from the very beginning. The Court further held that no subsequent legal actions- whether remand, filing of a chargesheet, or judicial custody- could cure or legitimize this initial illegality.
• • The Court emphasized that violations of constitutional rights, such as a breach of Article 22(1), provide sufficient grounds to grant bail, even in cases where statutory provisions would typically prevent bail for non-bailable offenses.
• • The Court condemned the practice of chaining or handcuffing an accused to a hospital bed- a violation of Article 21 (human dignity). Haryana was directed to formulate clear departmental guidelines to prevent such inhumane restraint.
• • The Court held that magistrates are duty-bound to ensure strict compliance with Article 22(1) before authorizing remand. In cases where a violation is established, the magistrate must mandatorily order the release of the accused and grant bail.
• • The Supreme Court underscored that no subsequent legal action (chargesheet filing or remand order) can cure an unconstitutional arrest.

Decision:

The Supreme Court ordered:

• • Immediate release of Vihaan Kumar with a bond submission.
• • The decision does not affect the merits of the chargesheet or ongoing trial.
• • Protective bail mandated; bond under Section 91 BNSS required.
• • Haryana State required to:
• o Implement strict SOPs for informing arrestees of grounds.
• o Issue explicit guidelines to prohibit chaining/handcuffing in hospitals.
• • A copy of the judgment will go to the Haryana Home Secretary.

Why this case matters?

o This judgment reinforces that the fundamental rights of an arrested person under Article 22(1) are absolute and non-negotiable.

o It sets a binding precedent requiring magistrates and law enforcement officers to actively uphold and protect these constitutional safeguards throughout the arrest and remand procedures.

o Additionally, it affirms that respect for human dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21, is a cornerstone of custodial law and must never be compromised.

Laws related therewith:

Under Constitution & BNSS:

o Article 22(1) – Right to be informed of grounds for arrest.

o Article 22(2) – Production before Magistrate within 24 hours.

o Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, including dignity.

Arrest and treatment must accord with “procedure established by law,” which the Court linked to Articles 22 and 50(1) of CrPC.

o Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) – Duty to communicate grounds of arrest

Requires the police to give “full particulars of the offence” and “other grounds for … arrest.” The Court stressed this is in addition to, not a substitute for, Article 22(1)

o Section 41(1) (ba) CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS 2023) – Conditions for arrest without warrant.

Permits arrest only where there is “credible information” of a serious offence. The Court reiterated that such credible grounds must exist which ties back to the need for informing grounds under Article 22(1).

Judicial Precedents:

• Hari kisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962) – Interpreted Article 22(5): the Court held that the arrested person must be meaningfully informed of the grounds. This rationale was imported into Article 22(1) in this case.

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) & Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024) – Reinforced the requirement under CrPC and constitution to meaningfully inform an arrested person, ideally in writing.

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Established that arrests must follow due procedure under Section 41 and be necessary; magistrates must carefully review the legality of arrests before remand.