Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.

] 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 Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. 426 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 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 Digital Supreme Court Reports [2025] 2 S.C.R. 427 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)] Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. 428 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Case Law Cited Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 – followed.