VIHAAN KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

                  [2025] 2 S.C.R. 424 : 2025 INSC 162

                               Vihaan Kumar
                                     v.
                          State of Haryana & Anr.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025)
                                07 February 2025
 [Abhay S. Oka* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       The main issue canvassed by the appellant in this appeal is the
       violation of the appellant’s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
       of India as the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his
       arrest.

                                     Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – Mandatory requirement
       under:
       Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] The requirement of informing a
       person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement
       of Article 22(1). [Para 21(a)]

       Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – What is the manner of
       informing the arrested person of his grounds of arrest:
       Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] The information of the grounds of
       arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner
       that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds
       is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively
       in the language which he understands – The mode and method of
       communication must be such that the object of the constitutional
       safeguard is achieved. [Para 21(b)]

       Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – The burden to prove the
       compliance of Article 22(1) is on Investigating Officer/Agency:
       Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] When arrested accused alleges non-
       compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will
       always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance
       with the requirements of Article 22(1). [Para 21(c)]

* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                                 425

                 Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     Constitution of India – Art.22(1) and Art.21 – Non-compliance
     with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of
     the accused:
     Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will
     be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed
     by the said Article – Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the
     right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution –
     Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1)
     vitiates the arrest of the accused – Hence, further orders passed
     by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated – Needless to add
     that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial – But,
     at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach
     of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). [Para 21(d)]

     Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – Duty of the Judicial
     Magistrate:
     Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] When an arrested person is
     produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of
     the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1)
     and other mandatory safeguards has been made. [Para 21(e)]

     Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – Duty of the Court:
     Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] When a violation of Article 22(1) is
     established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release
     of the accused – That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory
     restrictions on the grant of bail exist – The statutory restrictions do
     not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of
     Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. [Para 21(f)]

     Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973 – s.50 and s.50A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
     2023 – s.47 – Obligatory to inform about the arrest to the
     friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person:
     Held: [Per Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.] The purpose of
     inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person
     making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or
     persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they
     would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the
     release of the arrested person as permissible under the law – The
     arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate
426                                                              [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       and easy access to the legal process for securing his release,
       which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and
       such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them
       to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest –
       Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest
       to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives is not merely a
       formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons
       for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to
       him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure
       his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the
       fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article
       21 of the Constitution – Hence, the requirement of communicating
       the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person,
       but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be
       disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make
       the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and
       effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. [Para 3]

       Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 409,
       420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w. s.120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure,
       1973 – s.50 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 –
       s.47 – Appellant was arrested – Later, he was hospitalised – He
       was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed – Specific
       averment of the appellant that he was not informed about the
       grounds of arrest or reasons for arrest, and hence, there was
       a violation of s.50 of CrPC:
       Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] A status report/reply was filed by
       Assistant Commissioner of Police before the High Court in response
       to the petition – The grounds taken in the writ petition regarding
       failure to communicate the grounds of arrest were not dealt with in
       the reply – It was merely mentioned that the appellant’s wife was
       informed about the arrest – Thus, it is not even pleaded before the
       High Court that grounds of arrest were communicated or informed
       to the appellant – The communication of the grounds of arrest
       to the wife of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate of
       Article 22(1) – A contention has been raised for the first time in
       the written argument that the grounds of arrest were incorporated
       in the remand report – The police submit a remand report before
       the Magistrate for seeking remand without serving a copy thereof
       to the arrestee – The reason is that the Police cannot divulge the
       details of the investigation to the accused till the final report is
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                              427

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     filed – Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no
     compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the
     grounds of arrest – Also, information about the arrest is completely
     different from the grounds of arrest – The grounds of arrest are
     different from the arrest memo – The arrest memo incorporates
     the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present
     address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest,
     date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the
     accused and name, address and phone number of the person
     to whom information about arrest has been given – The same
     contains only the information stated above and not the grounds
     of arrest – The information about the arrest is completely different
     from information about the grounds of arrest – Mere information of
     arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest – A reliance
     was placed on the case diary entry which records that the appellant
     was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest – Only
     on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary, one cannot
     accept that compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred – No
     contemporaneous documents have been put on record wherein
     the grounds of arrest have been noted – Therefore, reliance
     placed on the diary entries is completely irrelevant – Therefore,
     in the facts of the case, there is no hesitation in holding that the
     arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to
     communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated
     by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]
     [Per Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. (concurring)] The
     requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is
     not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives
     or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the
     arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of
     the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest
     may be rendered illegal. [Para 3]

     Constitution of India – Art.22(1) – Directions to the State:
     Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] The State of Haryana directed to
     issue guidelines/departmental instructions to the police (i) to ensure
     that the act of handcuffing an accused while he is on a hospital
     bed and tying him to the hospital bed is not committed again; (ii)
     to ensure that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are
     strictly followed – If necessary, the State Government to amend
     the existing Rules/guidelines. [Para 33(e)]
428                                                             [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                Case Law Cited
       Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918 : 1962
       SCC OnLine SC 117 – followed.
       Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 12 SCR 714 : (2024) 7
       SCC 576; Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024] 6
       SCR 666 : (2024) 8 SCC 254; Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union
       of India [1981] 2 SCR 352 : (1981) 2 SCC 427 – relied on.

                                  List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                               List of Keywords
       Article 22(1) of the Constitution; Grounds for arrest; Information of
       the grounds of arrest; Non-compliance with the requirements of
       Article 22(1); Mandatory safeguards; Grounds of arrest in writing;
       Friends; Relatives; Contemporaneous documents; Section 50 of
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 50A of Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 1973; Investigating Officer/Agency.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       621 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2024 of the High Court
       of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRWP No. 7533 of 2024

                           Appearances for Parties
       Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Vishal Gosain, Anuroop
       Chakravarti, M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Archit Singh, Ms. Jasmine
       Damkewala, Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, M/s. Lawfic,
       Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Archit Singh, Ms. Rupali Samuel,
       Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Deepak Thukral, A.A.G., Sidharth Luthra, Basant R., Sr. Advs.,
       Suhaan Mukerji, Adarsh Kumar, Sayandeep Pahari, Kartikeye
       Dang, Abhishek Manchanda, Shariq Ansari, Tanmay Sinha,
       M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Akshay Amritanshu, Kavinesh RM,
       Naman Vashishtha, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf,
       Raunak Arora, Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Dipesh Singhal, Kapil Gaba,
       Honey Gola, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            429

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Abhay S. Oka, J.

     ISSUE INVOLVED
1.   Amongst other issues, the main issue canvassed by the appellant in
     this appeal is the violation of the appellant’s right under Article 22(1) of
     the Constitution of India (for short ‘the Constitution’) as the appellant
     was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.

     FACTUAL ASPECT
2.   A reference to a few factual aspects would be necessary. The
     challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 30th
     August 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of Punjab and
     Haryana High Court. The appellant was arrested in connection
     with first information report no.121 of 2023 dated 25th March 2023
     registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and
     471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
     ‘IPC’). According to the appellant’s case, he was arrested on 10th
     June 2024 at about 10.30 a.m. at his office premises on the 3rd-5th
     floor of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana. He was taken to DLF
     Police Station, Section 29, Gurugram. He was allegedly produced
     before the learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th
     June 2024 at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, there was a violation of Article
     22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal
     Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’). The allegation is that
     neither in the remand report nor in the order dated 11th June 2024
     passed by the learned Magistrate was the time of arrest mentioned.
     The FIR was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent. We
     may note here that, according to the case of the 1st respondent, the
     appellant was arrested on 10th June 2024 at 6.00 p.m. Therefore,
     compliance with the requirement of Article 22(2) was made.
3.   There is another very serious factual aspect. The order dated 4th
     October 2024 passed by this Court records that after the appellant
     was arrested, he was hospitalised in PGIMS, Rohtak. The learned
     counsel appearing for the appellant produced photographs which
430                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       showed that while he was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed
       and chained to the hospital bed. Therefore, a notice was issued on 4th
       October 2024 to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, calling upon
       him to file an affidavit stating whether the appellant was handcuffed
       and chained to the hospital bed. The order dated 21st October 2024
       records the admission of the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS that
       when the appellant was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed
       and chained to the bed. On this aspect, we may note that an affidavit
       was filed on 24th October 2024 by Shri Abhimanyu, HPS, Assistant
       Commissioner of Police, EOW I and II, Gurugram, Haryana. The
       affidavit states that the officials who were deployed to escort the
       appellant to PGIMS have been suspended, and a departmental
       inquiry was ordered against them by the Deputy Commissioner of
       Police on 23rd October 2024.

       SUBMISSIONS
4.     The learned senior counsel, Shri Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf
       of the appellant, invited our attention to the averments made in the
       writ petition filed before the High Court and, particularly, the grounds
       therein. He pointed out that grounds A and B contain a specific
       averment that the appellant was not informed about the grounds
       of arrest or reasons for arrest, and hence, there was a violation of
       Section 50 of CrPC. Further, Article 22(1) has also been violated. He
       pointed out that even in paragraph 13, there is a specific assertion
       to that effect. He invited our attention to the counter affidavit/status
       report filed by Shri Abhimanyu, Assistant Commissioner of Police,
       before the High Court. He submitted that it is not even a case made
       out by him that grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant
       in some form. Moreover, the specific averment in the petition that
       the grounds of arrest were not informed to the appellant has not
       been denied. He pointed out that the only pleading was that the
       appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest. Therefore, learned
       senior counsel, by relying upon decisions of this Court in the case of
       Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India1 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State
       (NCT of Delhi),2 submitted that on the failure of the 1st respondent



1    (2024) 7 SCC 576
2    (2024) 8 SCC 254
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          431

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     to comply with the mandate of Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC,
     the arrest of the appellant is rendered illegal. He also urged that
     there was a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution as he was
     not produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his
     arrest. Therefore, he must be forthwith set at liberty.
5.   Learned senior counsel Shri Basant R. represented the 1st respondent
     state. He submitted that the argument before the High Court as
     noted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned
     judgment is that the grounds of arrest were not handed over to him
     in compliance with the provisions of law. He submitted that it was not
     argued that grounds of arrest were not even orally communicated
     as there is no requirement under Article 22(1) or in Section 50
     of CrPC to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in
     writing. Moreover, he submitted that the mandate of Section 50 is
     that either the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested
     must be communicated to an arrestee or the grounds of arrest. He
     invited our attention to the arrest memo, which contains details of
     the offence, time and date of arrest, etc. He pointed out that the
     case diaries were placed before the High Court and in fact, the High
     Court examined the case diaries. He submitted that in the daily diary,
     an entry was made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, noting that the
     appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest.
     He submitted that though the High Court may not have recorded a
     finding based on the case diary, the fact remains that the learned
     Single Judge perused the diary and the entry mentioned above. In
     the written submissions, he urged that the grounds of arrest have
     been set out in the remand report dated 11th June 2024. He urged
     that there is a delay of more than 2 months in raising a contention
     regarding the violation of Article 22(1). He submitted that the appellant
     is now in custody under the process issued on the charge sheet. He
     submitted that there was a compliance made with the requirement
     of Article 22(2).
6.   Learned senior counsel Shri Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the
     2nd respondent, supported the submissions of the learned counsel
     appearing for the 1st respondent. He submitted that the case diary
     maintained by the police is a contemporaneous record which records
     that grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant. Therefore,
     there is no reason to disbelieve the stand of the police.
432                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

       PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ARRESTING A PERSON
       WITHOUT WARRANT
7.     Sub-Section (1) of Section 41 of CrPC lists cases where police may
       arrest a person without a warrant. The corresponding provision in
       the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’)
       is Section 35. Section 41 of CrPC reads thus:
            “41. When police may arrest without warrant.—(1) Any
            police officer may without an order from a Magistrate
            and without a warrant, arrest any person—
            (a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a
            cognizable offence;
            (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made,
            or credible information has been received, or a reasonable
            suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable
            offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which
            may be less than seven years or which may extend to
            seven years whether with or without fine, if the following
            conditions are satisfied, namely:—
            (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis
                  of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such
                  person has committed the said offence;
            (ii) the police office is satisfied that such arrest is
                  necessary—
                  (a) to prevent such person from committing any
                       further offence; or
                  (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or
                  (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence
                       of the offence to disappear or tampering with
                       such evidence in any manner; or
                  (d) to prevent such person from making any
                       inducement, threat or promise to any person
                       acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
                       dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
                       Court or to the police officer; or
                  (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence
                       in the Court whenever required cannot be
                       ensured,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            433

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


                      and the police officer shall record while making
                      such arrest, his reasons in writing.
                      Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases
                      where the arrest of a person is not required
                      under the provisions of this sub-section, record
                      the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
           (ba) against whom credible information has been
           received that he has committed a cognizable offence
           punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
           extend to more than seven years whether with or
           without fine or with death sentence and the police
           officer has reason to believe on the basis of that
           information that such person has committed the said
           offence;
           (c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under
           this Code or by order of the State Government; or
           (d) in whose possession anything is found which may
           reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who
           may reasonably be suspected of having committed an
           offence with reference to such thing; or
           (e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution
           of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape,
           from lawful custody; or
           (f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from
           any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or
           (g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a
           reasonable complaint has been made, or credible
           information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion
           exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed
           at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would
           have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is,
           under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable
           to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or
           (h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of
           any rule made under sub-section (5) of Section 356; or
           (i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral,
           has been received from another police officer, provided
434                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested
            and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to
            be made and it appears therefrom that the person might
            lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who
            issued the requisition.
            (2) Subject to the provisions of Section 42, no person
            concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom
            a complaint has been made or credible information has
            been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having
            so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant
            or order of a Magistrate.”
                                                    (emphasis added)
8.     In this case, a commission of a cognizable offence punishable with
       imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years
       has been alleged against the appellant. Hence, clause (ba) of sub-
       Section (1) of Section 41 [clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section
       35 of the BNSS] will apply. Therefore, a police officer can arrest a
       person without an order of a Magistrate or warrant subject to the
       following conditions:
       a)   Credible information has been received against the person
            that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with
            imprisonment for more than seven years and
       b)   The police officer has reason to believe on the basis of the
            information received that such a person has committed the
            offence.
       Hence, a police officer cannot casually arrest a person against
       whom the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment
       for more than seven years is alleged. He can arrest provided twin
       conditions in clause (ba) are satisfied. The emphasis is on “credible
       information”. He cannot arrest a person under clause (ba) unless
       credible information is received.
9.     Article 22 of the Constitution reads thus:
            “22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain
            cases.—(1) 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            435

                 Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


           denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a
           legal practitioner of his choice.
           (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
           shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a
           period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the
           time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
           the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be
           detained in custody beyond the said period without the
           authority of a magistrate.
           (3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
           (a)   to any person who for the time being is an enemy
                 alien; or
           (b)   to any person who is arrested or detained under any
                 law providing for preventive detention.
           (4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise
           the detention of a person for a longer period than three
           months unless—
           (a)   an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or
                 have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges
                 of a High Court has reported before the expiration
                 of the said period of three months that there is in its
                 opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
                 Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise
                 the detention of any person beyond the maximum
                 period prescribed by any law made by Parliament
                 under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
           (b)   such person is detained in accordance with the
                 provisions of any law made by Parliament under
                 sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
           (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an
           order made under any law providing for preventive
           detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon
           as may be, communicate to such person the grounds
           on which the order has been made and shall afford
           him the earliest opportunity of making a representation
           against the order.
436                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            (6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making
            any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose
            facts which such authority considers to be against the
            public interest to disclose.
            (7) Parliament may by law prescribe—
            (a)   the circumstances under which, and the class or
                  classes of cases in which, a person may be detained
                  for a period longer than three months under any law
                  providing for preventive detention without obtaining
                  the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with
                  the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);
            (b)   the maximum period for which any person may in any
                  class or classes of cases be detained under any law
                  providing for preventive detention; and
            (c)   the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board
                  in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4).”
                                                    (emphasis added)
       Clause (1) of Article 22 provides 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.
       Then comes Section 50 of CrPC (Section 47 of the BNSS), which
       reads thus:
            “50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of
            arrest and of right to bail.—(1) Every police officer or
            other person arresting any person without warrant shall
            forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence
            for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
            (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any
            person other than a person accused of a non-bailable
            offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is
            entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange
            for sureties on his behalf.”
10. As far as Article 22(1) is concerned, the legal position is well settled.
    In the case of Pankaj Bansal1, this Court dealt with Section 19 of the
    Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’).
    Section 19 reads thus:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          437

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


           “19. Power to arrest.—(1) If the Director, Deputy Director,
           Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this
           behalf by the Central Government by general or special
           order, has on the basis of material in his possession,
           reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded
           in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence
           punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and
           shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds
           for such arrest.
           (2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or
           any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such
           person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order
           along with the material in his possession, referred to in
           that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed
           envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such
           Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material
           for such period, as may be prescribed.
           (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall,
           within twenty-four hours, be taken to a [Special Court or]
           Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the
           case may be, having jurisdiction:
           Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude
           the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest
           to the [Special Court or] Magistrate’s Court.”
                                                   (emphasis added)
     There are two parts of Section 19(1). The first part is the requirement
     of recording in writing the reason to believe that any person has been
     guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. No such requirement
     of recording in writing the reason to believe is found in clause (ba)
     of Section 41(1). The second requirement incorporated in Section
     19(1) is that the person arrested shall be informed of the grounds of
     such arrest as soon as may be. The second part is the requirement
     incorporated in Article 22(1). Therefore, even under Section 19(1) of
     PMLA, there is a requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds
     of arrest. This decision deals with and interprets Article 22(1). In
     paragraph 38 of the decision, this Court held thus:
           “38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1)
           of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no
           person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
438                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
            grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental
            right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode
            of conveying information of the grounds of arrest
            must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the
            intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA
            enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof
            to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the
            twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such
            a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin
            conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the
            court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the
            Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release,
            that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
            arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly,
            that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
            To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the
            arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the
            authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and
            the basis for the officer’s “reason to believe” that he/she
            is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act.
            It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these
            facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and
            prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to
            believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to
            avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the
            grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the
            Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve
            this higher purpose and must be given due importance.”
                                                     (emphasis added)
       In the said decision, this Court in paragraphs 42 and 43 observed thus:
            “42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why
            a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not
            be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of
            course and without exception. There are two primary
            reasons as to why this would be the advisable course
            of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly,
            in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out
            to the arrested person or read by such person with
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            439

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


           nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given
           case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested
           person against the word of the authorised officer as
           to whether or not there is due and proper compliance
           in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation
           insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims
           that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds
           of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that
           is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document.
           Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the
           arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V.
           Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC
           (Cri) 1] . Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and
           the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by
           furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by
           the authorised officer in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, to
           the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead
           of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorised
           officer.
           43. The second reason as to why this would be the
           proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective
           underlying such information being given to the
           arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not
           only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is
           being arrested but also to enable such person to seek
           legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the
           court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/
           she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V.
           Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 :
           (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] are placed on record and we find that
           the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of
           arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj
           Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before
           this Court, but it was contended that they were produced
           at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier,
           this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the
           event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it
           would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or
           Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had
           read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail
440                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been
          arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of
          mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the
          contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/
          her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory
          protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the
          authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading
          of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and
          detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional
          requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate
          under Section 19(1) PMLA.”
                                                   (emphasis added)
11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 was reiterated by this
    Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha2. In paragraphs nos. 28
    and 29, this Court held thus:
          “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5)
          of the Constitution of India regarding the communication
          of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the
          constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of
          “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be
          communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this
          important facet of the fundamental right as made by the
          Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article
          22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply
          to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the
          requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is
          concerned.
          29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the
          requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or
          the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested
          in connection with an offence or a person placed under
          preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1)
          and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct
          and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-
          compliance of this constitutional requirement and
          statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the
          detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.”
                                                   (emphasis added)
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                             441

                   Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


12. This Court held that the language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5)
    regarding communication of the grounds is identical, and therefore,
    this Court held that interpretation of Article 22(5) made by the
    Constitution Bench in the case of Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra,3
    shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
    insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest
    is concerned. We may also note here that in paragraph 21, in the
    case of Prabir Purkayastha,2 this Court also dealt with the effect
    of violation of Article 22(1) by holding that any infringement of this
    fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.
    Paragraph 21 reads thus:
            “21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
            flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
            infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
            process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-
            sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate
            the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed
            at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of
            initial police custody remand to the accused.”
                                                      (emphasis added)
13. In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India4, in
    paragraph 20, this Court held thus:
            “20. It is an admitted position that the detenu does not
            know English. The grounds of detention, which were
            served on the detenu, have been drawn up in English. It
            is true that Shri C.L. Antali, Police Inspector, who served
            the grounds of detention on the detenu, has filed an
            affidavit stating that he had fully explained the grounds
            of detention in Gujarati to the detenu. But, that is not a
            sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the
            Constitution, which requires that the grounds of detention
            must be “communicated” to the detenu. “Communicate”
            is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of
            the basic facts constituting the “grounds” should be
            imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing


3   1962 SCC OnLine SC 117
4   (1981) 2 SCC 427
442                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            in a language which he understands. The whole purpose
            of communicating the “ground” to the detenu is to enable
            him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If
            the “grounds” are only verbally explained to the detenu
            and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which
            he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the
            constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed. If any
            authority is needed on this point, which is so obvious from
            Article 22(5), reference may be made to the decisions
            of this Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962
            Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 911 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 797]
            and Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate [(1969) 1 SCR
            227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 Cri LJ 274] .”
                                                      (emphasis added)
       Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned, compliance can be made
       by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting
       the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The grounds should be
       effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in
       which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the
       grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee
       understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj Bansal1, this Court
       held that the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily
       be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under
       Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the grounds
       of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every
       person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be
       defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated
       to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively
       exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement incorporated
       in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for arresting the person
       without a warrant exist. Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty
       under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental
       right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must
       understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the
       mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful
       so as to serve the objects stated above.
14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the
    grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional
    requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        443

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right
     of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed
     of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of
     arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it
     would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee
     guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the
     arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21,
     no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with
     the procedure established by law. The procedure established by
     law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when
     a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest
     are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will
     amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under
     Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is
     not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person,
     it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under
     Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure
     to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as
     soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the
     arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in
     custody even for a second.
15. We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42 and 43 of
    the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal.1 This Court has suggested
    that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of
    arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before
    a police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds
    of arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the
    grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no
    requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what
    is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of
    Pankaj Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are
    aware that in every case, it may not be practicable to implement
    what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the
    controversy about the non-compliance will not arise at all. The police
    have to balance the rights of a person arrested with the interests of
    the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply
    with the requirements of Article 22.
16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st
    respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly
    remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His
444                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to
       the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting
       such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel,
       will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
       Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due
       to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore,
       continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is
       also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not
       validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of
       Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker
       with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.
17. Another argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that
    even if the appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article
    22, the first respondent can arrest him again. At this stage, it is not
    necessary to decide the issue.
18. In the present case, 1st respondent relied upon an entry in the case
    diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, which records
    that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of
    arrest. For the reasons which will follow hereafter, we are rejecting
    the argument made by the 1st respondent. If the police want to prove
    communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it
    is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry
    or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the
    same are informed. Therefore, in a given case, even assuming that
    the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the
    constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary,
    there must be a contemporaneous record, which records what the
    grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee pleads before a Court
    that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove
    the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.
19. An argument was sought to be canvassed that in view of sub-
    Section (1) of Section 50 of CrPC, there is an option to communicate
    to the person arrested full particulars of the offence for which he
    is arrested or the other grounds for the arrest. Section 50 cannot
    have the effect of diluting the requirement of Article 22(1). If held
    so, Section 50 will attract the vice of unconstitutionality. Section
    50 lays down the requirement of communicating the full particulars
    of the offence for which a person is arrested to him. The ‘other
    grounds for such arrest’ referred to in Section 50(1) have nothing
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            445

                 Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in Article 22(1). The
     requirement of Section 50 is in addition to what is provided in Article
     22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the corresponding provision.
     Therefore, what we have held about Section 50 will apply to
     Section 47 of the BNSS.
20. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate
    for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether
    compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. The reason is that
    due to non-compliance, the arrest is rendered illegal; therefore, the
    arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. It
    is the obligation of all the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights.

     CONCLUSIONS
21. Therefore, we conclude:
     a)    The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of
           arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
     b)    The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to
           the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge
           of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and
           communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language
           which he understands. The mode and method of communication
           must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is
           achieved;
     c)    When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
           requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on
           the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the
           requirements of Article 22(1);
     d)    Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the
           fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article.
           Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal
           liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore,
           non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates
           the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a
           criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that
           it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at
           the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach
           of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);
446                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       e)   When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial
            Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain
            whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory
            safeguards has been made; and
       f)   When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of
            the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will
            be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the
            grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the
            power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles
            21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

       FACTUAL ADJUDICATION
22. In ground A of the writ petition filed before the High Court, a specific
    factual contention has been raised to the following effect:
            “A. BECAUSE the arrest of the Petitioner dated 10.06.2024
            is patently illegal inasmuch the Petitioner was not provided
            with the grounds or reasons of arrest.
            ……………………………………………………………”
       Even the same contention is raised in ground B very specifically
       and a further contention is raised due to non-compliance with the
       requirement of informing the appellant of the grounds of arrest,
       the appellant’s arrest is rendered illegal. The same is the ground
       specifically taken in ground E also. Thus, the appellant repeatedly
       pleaded violation of Article 22(1) by explicitly contending that he was
       not informed of the grounds of arrest.
23. A status report/reply was filed by Shri Abhimanyu, Assistant
    Commissioner of Police before the High Court in response to the
    petition. The grounds taken in the writ petition regarding failure to
    communicate the grounds of arrest are not dealt with in the reply at
    all. It is merely mentioned that the appellant’s wife was informed about
    the arrest. Thus, it is not even pleaded before the High Court that
    grounds of arrest were communicated or informed to the appellant.
24. It is pertinent to note the stand Shri Abhimanyu took while filing a
    reply to the present Special Leave Petition. He has described in
    detail how the appellant was arrested. Most pertinently in paragraph
    11, he stated thus:
            “………………………………………………………..
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        447

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


           The petitioner, thereafter, gave his phone to IO to make
           call at the mobile no. of his wife. The IO called from the
           phone of the petitioner and his wife immediately responded
           the phone call. Thus, when informing Petitioner’s wife
           about Petitioner’s arrest, the grounds of arrest were
           also explained to her in detail as per the provisions
           of Section 50A of CrPC. Further, when Petitioner’s wife
           came to meet the Petitioner, she was again explained
           the grounds of arrest in detail and shown the relevant
           documents.
           ………………..………………………………………”
                                                   (emphasis added)
     Thus, the stand taken by Shri Abhimanyu is that the grounds of arrest
     were explained to the appellant’s wife in detail, and when she again
     came to meet the appellant, she was informed and explained the
     grounds of arrest. Thus, the stand taken shows that grounds of arrest
     were not informed to the appellant but to his wife. The contention
     that the appellant’s wife was informed about the grounds of arrest
     is an afterthought, as no such contention has been raised in the
     reply filed before the High Court. Communication of the grounds of
     arrest to the wife of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate
     of Article 22(1). As the ground of non-compliance with Article 22(1)
     has been specifically pleaded in this appeal, this was the second
     opportunity available to the 1st respondent to plead and prove that
     grounds of arrest were informed to the appellant. However, it has
     not been done, and his contention is that the grounds of arrest were
     communicated to the appellant’s wife.
25. A contention has been raised in the written argument that the
    grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. This
    contention has been raised for the first time in written submissions
    before this Court. This is not pleaded in the reply filed before the
    High Court and this Court. The police submit a remand report before
    the learned Magistrate for seeking remand without serving a copy
    thereof to the arrestee. The reason is that the Police cannot divulge
    the details of the investigation to the accused till the final report is
    filed. Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no
    compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the
    grounds of arrest.
448                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


26. The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant’s
    wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is
    completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest
    are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates
    the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present
    address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date
    and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and
    name, address and phone number of the person to whom information
    about arrest has been given. We have perused the arrest memo in
    the present case. The same contains only the information stated
    above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the
    arrest is completely different from information about the grounds
    of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing
    grounds of arrest.
27. Reliance was placed in this regard on the case diary entry of 10th
    June 2024 at 6.10 p.m., which records that the appellant was
    arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. This was not
    pleaded before the High Court as well as in this Court in the reply of
    1st respondent. This is an afterthought. Considering the stand taken
    in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court, only on the
    basis of a vague entry in the police diary, we cannot accept that
    compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred. No contemporaneous
    documents have been put on record wherein the grounds of arrest
    have been noted. Therefore, reliance placed on the diary entries is
    completely irrelevant.
28. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding
    that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of
    failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as
    mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
29. Before we part with this judgment, we must refer to the shocking
    treatment given to the appellant by the police. He was taken to a
    hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to the hospital
    bed. This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant
    under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity
    is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21. We, therefore,
    propose to direct the State Government to issue necessary directions
    to ensure that such illegalities are never committed.
30. We must refer to the reasons recorded by the High Court. Paragraph
    7 of the judgment notes the contention regarding failure to serve
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           449

                Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     grounds of arrest. Paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment reads thus:
           “9. In the above said para, it has been explicitly
           mentioned that petitioner was informed regarding his
           arrest and after that he was produced before the Judicial
           Magistrate, who had given the seven days police custody
           for conducting investigation. The allegations about non-
           supply of arrest, is simply bald. The analysis of above,
           would clearly point out that there is no violation of Article
           22(1) of Constitution of India because there is nothing to
           disbelieve that petitioner was not informed about ground
           of arrest.”
31. The learned Single Judge, unfortunately, has equated information
    given regarding the appellant’s arrest with the grounds of arrest.
    The observation that the allegation of non-supply of the grounds
    of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely
    uncalled for. All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to
    uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental
    right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High
    Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the
    other. When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to
    grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions raised:
    (a) that the arrested person was not informed of the grounds of
    arrest, or (b) purported information of grounds of arrest does
    not contain any ground of arrest. As far as the first contention is
    concerned, the person who is arrested can discharge his burden
    by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to him.
    If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden
    is on the arresting agency or the State to satisfy the court that
    effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article
    22(1). Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is completely
    erroneous.
32. In view of the above findings, we are not deciding the issue of
    violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
33. Hence, the appeal is allowed, and we pass the following order:
     a)    The arrest of the appellant shown on 10 th June 2024 in
           connection with FIR no.121 of 2023 dated 25th March 2023
           registered at Police Station DLF, Sector-29, Gurugram stands
           vitiated;
450                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       b)   Therefore, the appellant shall be forthwith released and set at
            liberty;
       c)   We clarify that the finding of this Court that the arrest of
            the appellant stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the
            chargesheet and the pending case;
       d)   We direct the appellant to regularly and punctually attend the
            trial court unless his presence is exempted, and cooperate
            with the trial court for early disposal of the trial. We direct the
            appellant to furnish a bond in accordance with Section 91 of
            the BNSS to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period
            of two weeks from his release ;
       e)   The State of Haryana shall issue guidelines/departmental
            instructions to the police (i) to ensure that the act of handcuffing
            an accused while he is on a hospital bed and tying him to the
            hospital bed is not committed again. (ii) to ensure that the
            constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed.
            If necessary, the State Government shall amend the existing
            Rules/guidelines; and
       f)   A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Home Secretary
            of the State of Haryana.


       Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

1.     I had the benefit of going through the draft opinion of my esteemed
       Brother Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and I concur with the
       analysis and conclusions arrived at. However, I wish to add a few
       lines in supplement to the aforesaid opinion.
2.     The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds of
       arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of
       the Constitution of India, which has also been incorporated in the
       Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Section 19 thereof
       has been succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The constitutional
       mandate of informing the grounds of arrest to the person arrested in
       writing has been explained in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so
       as to be meaningful to serve the intended purpose which has been
       reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said constitutional
       mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the
       CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It may also be noted that the aforesaid
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          451

                   Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.


     provision of requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to
     be purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends,
     relatives or such other persons of the accused as may be disclosed
     or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
     information as provided under Section 50A of the CrPC. As may be
     noted, this is in the addition of the requirement as provided under
     Section 50(1) of the CrPC.
3.   The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory
     on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends,
     relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure
     that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to
     secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the
     law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have
     immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his
     release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives
     and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing
     them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest.
     Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to
     the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is
     not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the
     reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity
     to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure
     his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the
     fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21
     of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the
     grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also
     to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed
     or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate
     of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing
     which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan