Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana Anr

by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs State(NCT Of Delhi): (2024) 8 SCC 254. 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 3 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 of the constitutional provisions require "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 o ffence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of constitutional requirement statutory mandate would lead to the custody the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. (emphasis added)"

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 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 4 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 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.

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 grounds imparted 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 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 5 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 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 it will not vitiate investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 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 statutory grant of bail exist. The 6 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 restrictions do not act the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

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 information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.” (ग) पुनः उनका यह भी कथन है िक आवेदक की तरफ से यह आ्षासन िदया गया है िक वह कानून की ्ऺि्वया में सहयोग करने के िलए तैयार है और जब भी आवश्यकता होगी वह ईमानदारी से अदालत के सम्ष खुद को उपलब्ध कराएगा और उन सभी शतॏल को स्वीकार करने के िलए भी तैयार है जो न्यायालय उस पर अिधरोिपत करेगी। आवेदक िनदरॏष है तथा वह इस ्ऺकरण में िद० 18.06.2025 से कारागार में िनरु्ध है। इसिलए आवेदक को जमानत पर छोड़ िदया जाय।

4. िव्षान अपर शासकीय अिधव्वा ने आवेदक के जमानत का ्ऺबल िवरोध करते हुए तकर् ्ऺस्तुत िकया िक आवेदक ्षारा कािरत अपराध सं ं्ञेय एवं गंभीर ्ऺकृ ित का है, इसिलए आवेदक को जमानत पर न छोड़ा जाय।

5. आवेदक के िव्षान अिधव्वा के तकॏल के पिर्ऺेष्य में प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध सारवान तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों का सम्ष रूप से अवलोकन करने के बाद, सबूतों 7 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 की ्ऺकृ ित और िकसी भी ठोस िवरोधात्मक साम्षी की अनुपिस्थित एवं उपलब्ध साम्षी से छेड़छाड़ की संभावना न होने के तथ्य को देखते हुए मेरी राय में आवेदक को जमानत पर मु्व करने का उपयु्व आधार है।

6. अतः वाद के गुण-दोष पर िबना कोई िटप्पणी िकए हुए आवेदक को उपरो्व विणत अपराध में संबंिधत न्यायालय की संतुि्ि पर ्िि्वगत बंध-प्ऴ एवं अिधक धनरािश के कोई भी दो ्ऺितभू ्ऺस्तुत करने पर िनम्निलिखत शतॏल के साथ जमानत पर छोड़ िदया जाय। i. आवेदक िववेचना या परी्षण के दौरान अिभयोजन साष्यों के साथ छेड़छाड़ नहीं करेगा। ii. आवेदक अिभयोजन साि्षयों व पीिड़ता/ िशकायतकतार् को डरायेगा/धमकायेगा नहीं। iii. आवेदक न्यायालय के आदेशों का पालन करेगा, वह परी्षण के दौरान िबना कोई अनावश्यक स्थगन िलए िनयत ितिथ पर न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होगा तथा परी्षण में ईमानदारी से सहयोग करेगा। iv. आवेदक जमानत पर िरहा होने के बाद जमानत की स्वतं्ऴता का दुरूपयोग नही करेगा और िकसी भी अपरािधक गितिविध में िलप्त नहीं होगा न कोई अपरािधक कृ त्य करेगा। v. आवेदक ्ऺत्य्ष या अ्ऺत्य्ष रूप से मामले के तथ्यों से पिरिचत िकसी भी ्िि्व या पुिलस अिधकािरयों को कोई ्ऺलोभन या धमकी नहीं देगा न ही उनसे कोई वायदा करेगा, िजसके कारण उन्हें न्यायालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से िवरत ़। रहना पडे

7. उपरो्व शतॏल में से िकसी के उल्लंघन के मामले में, परी्षण न्यायालय आवेदक की जमानत िनयमानुसार र्द करने को स्वतं्ऴ है। (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 4, 2025 Pawan Kumar PAWAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs State(NCT Of Delhi): (2024) 8 SCC 254. 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 3 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 of the constitutional provisions require "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 o ffence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of constitutional requirement statutory mandate would lead to the custody the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. (emphasis added)"

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 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 4 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 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.

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 grounds imparted 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 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 5 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 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 it will not vitiate investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 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 statutory grant of bail exist. The 6 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 restrictions do not act the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

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 information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.” (ग) पुनः उनका यह भी कथन है िक आवेदक की तरफ से यह आ्षासन िदया गया है िक वह कानून की ्ऺि्वया में सहयोग करने के िलए तैयार है और जब भी आवश्यकता होगी वह ईमानदारी से अदालत के सम्ष खुद को उपलब्ध कराएगा और उन सभी शतॏल को स्वीकार करने के िलए भी तैयार है जो न्यायालय उस पर अिधरोिपत करेगी। आवेदक िनदरॏष है तथा वह इस ्ऺकरण में िद० 18.06.2025 से कारागार में िनरु्ध है। इसिलए आवेदक को जमानत पर छोड़ िदया जाय।

4. िव्षान अपर शासकीय अिधव्वा ने आवेदक के जमानत का ्ऺबल िवरोध करते हुए तकर् ्ऺस्तुत िकया िक आवेदक ्षारा कािरत अपराध सं ं्ञेय एवं गंभीर ्ऺकृ ित का है, इसिलए आवेदक को जमानत पर न छोड़ा जाय।

5. आवेदक के िव्षान अिधव्वा के तकॏल के पिर्ऺेष्य में प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध सारवान तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों का सम्ष रूप से अवलोकन करने के बाद, सबूतों 7 BAIL No. 30456 of 2025 की ्ऺकृ ित और िकसी भी ठोस िवरोधात्मक साम्षी की अनुपिस्थित एवं उपलब्ध साम्षी से छेड़छाड़ की संभावना न होने के तथ्य को देखते हुए मेरी राय में आवेदक को जमानत पर मु्व करने का उपयु्व आधार है।

6. अतः वाद के गुण-दोष पर िबना कोई िटप्पणी िकए हुए आवेदक को उपरो्व विणत अपराध में संबंिधत न्यायालय की संतुि्ि पर ्िि्वगत बंध-प्ऴ एवं अिधक धनरािश के कोई भी दो ्ऺितभू ्ऺस्तुत करने पर िनम्निलिखत शतॏल के साथ जमानत पर छोड़ िदया जाय। i. आवेदक िववेचना या परी्षण के दौरान अिभयोजन साष्यों के साथ छेड़छाड़ नहीं करेगा। ii. आवेदक अिभयोजन साि्षयों व पीिड़ता/ िशकायतकतार् को डरायेगा/धमकायेगा नहीं। iii. आवेदक न्यायालय के आदेशों का पालन करेगा, वह परी्षण के दौरान िबना कोई अनावश्यक स्थगन िलए िनयत ितिथ पर न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होगा तथा परी्षण में ईमानदारी से सहयोग करेगा। iv. आवेदक जमानत पर िरहा होने के बाद जमानत की स्वतं्ऴता का दुरूपयोग नही करेगा और िकसी भी अपरािधक गितिविध में िलप्त नहीं होगा न कोई अपरािधक कृ त्य करेगा। v. आवेदक ्ऺत्य्ष या अ्ऺत्य्ष रूप से मामले के तथ्यों से पिरिचत िकसी भी ्िि्व या पुिलस अिधकािरयों को कोई ्ऺलोभन या धमकी नहीं देगा न ही उनसे कोई वायदा करेगा, िजसके कारण उन्हें न्यायालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से िवरत ़। रहना पडे

7. उपरो्व शतॏल में से िकसी के उल्लंघन के मामले में, परी्षण न्यायालय आवेदक की जमानत िनयमानुसार र्द करने को स्वतं्ऴ है। (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 4, 2025 Pawan Kumar PAWAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad