Citation: SLP (Crl) No.
13320/2024
Bench: Abhay S. Oka (J)
and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (J)
Vihaan Kumar's arrest was
overturned by the Supreme Court of India in a landmark ruling, which held that
his detention violated his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution.
In this case, the Supreme
Court decided that, in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Indian
Constitution, an arrest is unlawful if the subject of the arrest has no
knowledge of the justification for the arrest. Despite legislative limitations,
the Court ruled that in these situations, the accused must be released on bail.
It further underlined that during remand proceedings, magistrates are
responsible for ensuring adherence to constitutional protections.
Facts
The case concerned the
arrest of Vihaan Kumar, who was detained by Haryana Police for offences under
Sections 409 IPC/ 316 BNS (criminal breach of trust by a
public servant or banker), 420 IPC/ 318 BNS (cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 IPC/ 338 BNS (forgery
of valuable security), 468 IPC/ 336 BNS (forgery for the
purpose of cheating), 471 IPC/ 340 BNS (using as genuine a
forged document), 120-B/ 61(1) BNS (criminal
conspiracy) , without being told the reason he was being held.
According to the applicant, this omission infringed upon his basic right as
guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and
Section 50 CrPC.
Article 22 (1) of the
Constitution of India states that “No person who is arrested shall be detained
in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a
legal practitioner of his choice.”
Furthermore, as per the
appellant's argument, he was taken into custody at approximately 10.30 a.m. on
June 10, 2024, at his office located on the third to fifth floors of HUDA City
Centre in Gurugram, Haryana. He was brought to Gurugram's Section 29, DLF
Police Station. According to reports, he was brought before the learned
Judicial Magistrate (in charge) in Gurgaon on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.
Consequently, Section 57 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article
22(2) of the Constitution were breached.
In addition, the case
exposed a serious human rights violation when it was discovered that the
appellant was handcuffed and chained to a medical bed at PGIMS, Rohtak,
following his detention. In response to this startling treatment, the Supreme
Court sent a notice the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak. The appellant
had in fact been restrained during treatment, as the hospital administration
subsequently acknowledged. The court ordered the Haryana government to make
sure that similar infractions don't happen again after the Medical
Superintendent of PGIMS acknowledged this in an affidavit. The responsible
police officers were suspended, and a departmental investigation was launched.
High Court Ruling
Vihaan Kumar, an
appellant contesting the validity of his arrest, had his case denied by the
Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant had gone to the High Court,
claiming that his arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) because he was never
told the reason for his arrest. The appellant additionally argued that the
arrest note, remand report, and case diary did not indicate if he was told why
he was arrested, only that he was arrested.
The State of Haryana,
represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, contested the
petition, claiming that the appellant's wife had been notified of his arrest,
that the remand report that was presented to the magistrate included information
about the arrest, and that the appellant was only arrested after being informed
of the reasons for his arrest, as stated in an entry in the police case diary.
When examining the
arguments, the High Court noted that the arrest memo included enough
information, such as the arrested person's name, address, FIR details, the
sections under which he was charged, the location, date, and time of the
arrest, the arresting officer's name, and the identity of the person who was
informed about the arrest. Since the appellant's wife was notified of the
arrest, the court ruled that there was no infringement of her constitutional
rights, equating this information with compliance under Article 22(1).
The appellant's argument
that he was not directly told of the reasons for his arrest was rejected by the
court. It said that it is blatant and unsupported to simply say that the
grounds for arrest were not communicated. The police case diary entry, which
claimed that the appellant had been told the reasons for the arrest, was also
cited by the court. The court saw no cause to doubt the police's claim, despite
the fact that this was not specifically stated in the arrest memo.
The High Court further
ruled that although an arrest memo and a remand report are separate documents,
they together offer a thorough account of an arrest. It determined that there
was no legal requirement that the grounds of arrest be conveyed in writing and
that the statement of the grounds of arrest in the remand report complied with
the law. The court noted that while the appellant was brought before the
magistrate within 24 hours, in accordance with Article 22(2) of the
Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC, the remand order issued by the
magistrate further supported the validity of the arrest.
The High Court declined
to step in and rule that the appellant's allegation that he was chained to a
hospital bed during his treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak, was a distinct matter that
belonged to departmental investigation rather than a habeas corpus petition.
The State's argument that an internal investigation had already been started
and that the implicated officers had been suspended had been considered by the
court.
Analysis by the Apex Court
The Supreme Court upheld
the requirement that an individual who has been arrested be told the reason for
their arrest in a language they can comprehend. Failure to do so renders the
arrest unlawful. When an accused person alleges a violation of Article 22(1),
the onus of proof shifts on the investigating officer, as Justice Abhay S. Oka
stressed. Before awarding remand, magistrates must confirm compliance, the
Court decided. If a violation is discovered, they have to order release right
away. The arrest is unlawful if the accused's family members or designated
individuals are not notified in accordance with Section 50 of the CrPC (now Sec
47 of BNSS,2023), Justice N. Kotiswar Singh added. Even in circumstances where
there are statutory constraints, judges have the authority to issue bail since
constitutional violations supersede them.
The court disagreed with
the Punjab & Haryana High Court's reason, which had equated compliance with
telling the appellant's wife in accordance with Article 22(1). The appellant's
plea was dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that it was a blatant
allegation, which was a mistake. The Supreme Court ruled that the onus of proof
switches to the State if an arrested individual claims non-compliance with
Article 22(1). As the State was unable to produce contemporaneous records that
demonstrated compliance, the arrest was deemed vitiated.
Additionally, the Supreme
Court strongly condemned the appellant's cruel treatment while detention in
addition to the breach of fundamental protections. The appellant's
hospitalization at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a
hospital bed, was taken seriously. According to the court, such treatment is a
flagrant violation of both the fundamental right to life under Article 21 and
human dignity. The court declared that it is unlawful, cruel, and
unconstitutional to bind an accused person to a hospital bed and ordered the
State of Haryana to release new regulations to stop such abuses of human
rights.
Given these conclusions,
the Supreme Court ordered the appellant's immediate release and overturned the
Punjab & Haryana High Court's ruling. Furthermore, the court decided that
any remand orders based on an arrest that violates Article 22(1) are unlawful
as well. The State of Haryana was also instructed to make sure that Article
22(1) is strictly followed in all upcoming arrests. This historic decision
ensures that no one's rights be taken away without due process of law,
reinforcing the value of personal liberty and constitutional protections.
Major Provisions of the Judgment
Immediate Release: Since Kumar's arrest is void, he needs to be freed right away.No Effect on Trial: The ruling made it clear that not quashing the arrest had no bearing on the case's merits or the charge sheet that is still pending.
Judicial Oversight: Prior
to authorizing remand in subsequent cases, magistrates must confirm adherence
to Article 22(1).
State Reforms: The government of Haryana has to establish stringent
regulations that forbid the illegal handcuffing and chaining of those who have
been arrested, especially in medical facilities.
No Impact on Trial: The
ruling made it clear that the merits of the case or the current charge sheet
are unaffected by the arrest being quashed.
