Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana & Anr. 2025 INSC 162
This article is written by Dhriti Sachdeva SRM University, Sonepat Delhi NCR.
The appeal filed by Vihaan Kumar constitutes gross injustice at lower court and decision has been contrary to the weight of evidence and arguments stated. There has been a violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950. This fundamental right has been guaranteed by Part – III of the Indian Constitution. This means that appellant at the time of arrest has not been informed of grounds on which he has been arrested.
The individual liberty to be represented has been curtailed. The individual has not been produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours that shows arbitrary and ineffective procedure in functioning of police, law and order.
Virtual background/Facts
He was arrested from his office in Gurgaon on 1st of June 2024. The FIR has been filed charging him under “Section 409, 420, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code.” “At the time of his arrest, he has not been informed of the grounds on which arrest has been made violating the Art 22 (1) of COI, 1950 & Section 50A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which now has been repealed”. The procedure established by law has not been followed while making an arrest. It causes irregularity, poor execution of the procedure mentioned.
The legal documents such as remand report and magistrate’s order have not been in compliance within the guidelines laid down, Then he has been taken to hospital handcuffed and tied with chains. Hence aggrieved with the order of Punjab and Haryana Court he has filed a Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court.
Statement of Issues
The Supreme Court questioned Vihaan Kumar about whether writing notes or telling his wife could take the place of a direct explanation. The Supreme Court concentrated on whether Vihaan Kumar was somewhat protected by the Constitution.
Whether or not stating the reasons for arrest in documents such as the arrest memo or remand report has been sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement was another crucial question.
Important Part of the Judgement
In this case, Justice Abhay S. Oka delivered the judgement, in consonance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution, describing some of the reasons for an arrest has not been simply a formality. The arrest itself becomes unlawful when police do not inform the person who has been arrested the true reason for his arrest. The Court stated that this kind of non-compliance also breaches Article 21, which safeguards individual freedom and liberty.
The Court directed the State to issue guidelines so that this practice is stopped, as custodial treatment must respect human dignity.
Justice Singh noted, “It is essential that there is a written communication of the grounds of arrest so that the arrested person can challenge their arrest in a meaningful way.”
Procedural Remedies while Making Arrest under BNSS
Procedure of arrest stated under Sec 39 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: While making an arrest the police should bear visible identification marks and prepare a memorandum of arrest.
How Arrest has been made stated under Sec 43 of BNSS: An Arrest has been done by touching or confining the person taken into custody, unless required the use of force should be prohibited, special measures has been provided for handcuffing and arrest of woman.
No person can be arrested and illegally detained without informing on grounds of arrest.
Every person arrested and detained shall be produced within 24 hours of arrest before a magistrate having competent jurisdiction excluding the time travel of journey.
Relevant Case Laws
Hari Kishan v/s State of Maharashtra (1962) – In this case petitioner has been detained under preventive detention law on the grounds that he has been supplied with grounds on which he has been arrested but not communicated to that language he understands thereby causing ineffective representation against the detention.
Ratio of the case – The grounds of arrest must be conveyed in clear and understandable language. Article 22 (5) of Indian Constitution ensures purposeful and meaningful representation and shall not defeat the very purpose of law.
Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar (2024) – A Supreme Court case where the misuse of powers to arrest people accused under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act has been increasing. The Supreme Court found that it has been common for police to arrest people automatically in cognizable offences without considering whether or not an arrest has been necessary; as well, it found that Magistrates have authorized detention automatically.
Police officers must write down their reasons for making or not making an arrest and provide a checklist of compliance to the Magistrate. According to Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police have to issue a notice to appear in lieu of making an arrest for all offences that have been punishable by imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. Before a Magistrate authorizes the remand of an accused person to custody, he or she must determine whether it has been necessary to make the arrest and whether the arrest was lawful.
Consequently, the Court has turned the requirements of the law into constitutional protections that are enforceable against the police.
Essentially by establishing that an arrest is no longer just a matter for police, but has been subject to statutory criteria and therefore if there have been no legitimate and true grounds for an arrest, you cannot be arrested, you cannot be remanded in custody or you cannot be held in custody.
Conclusion – Why to inform reasons in every case?
An arrest directly affects a person’s liberty, character, and quality; thus, the law insists that the existent must easily know why such a serious step is being taken against them. Being “informed” means much further than a casual or vague oral statement. The information must be clear, specific, and comprehensible, rather in jotting and in a language understood by the arrested person.
Right to inform guarantees fair, equitable and transparent administration of justice. Thus, I believe that the right to be informed at the time of arrest has been the underpinning principle of a fair legal system and that the State will exercise its power within the Constitution, and to treat people with dignity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Art 22 (1) of Constitution of India say?
Art 22 (1) no person shall be arrested and detained without informing him the grounds of arrest, provide him right to consult with legal practitioner and have right to representation.
Under which section procedure of arrest guidelines has been stated?
Section 39 of BNSS talks about the guidelines laid down for the procedure of arrest.
Under which section police have to issue notice?
Under sec 41 A of CRPC police have to issue a notice of appearance.
The reason of arrest has been orally communicated would it amount to be credible or sufficient?
No, the reasons of arrest should be communicated in written manner so as the arrested person can challenge his detention in a meaningful way.
What guidelines has been given in the Judgement Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar 2024?
Police officers shall mandatorily record the reasons of arrest in writing and provide a checklist to be in compliance with judge. When awarding punishment for seven years or less firstly provide a notice of appearance then record reasons whether the person has been arrested lawfully and it was necessary or not.
References
https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/vihaan-kumar-v-the-state-of-haryana-and-anr
https://www.pahujalawacademy.com/vihaan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-haryana-crla-no-6212025
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74708490
https://ijrlm.com/wp-content/uploads/jms/ms/68bf2a5cee3c9.pdf
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/constitution-of-india/vihaan-kumar-v-state-of-haryana-&-anr-2025
