Arrest Vitiated If Grounds of Arrest Are Not Effectively Communicated, SC Directs Immediate Release and Police Guidelines

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order upholding the arrest of the appellant in an economic offences FIR; the principal issue was whether the appellant's constitutional right under Article 22(1) was violated because he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that non‑compliance with Article 22(1) vitiated the arrest and remand, and directed the appellant's immediate release subject to conditions for trial attendance. The Court emphasised that the requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest was "mandatory" and must be given in a manner that imparts "sufficient knowledge of the basic facts" in a language the arrestee understands. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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); 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.”

Background

The appellant was arrested on 10 June 2024 in connection with FIR No. 121/2023 alleging offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC. He alleged that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest and therefore his detention breached Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC; he also raised a separate challenge to alleged non‑production within 24 hours under Article 22(2). The State relied on a police diary entry and remand papers, and contended that the grounds had been communicated (including, the police said, to the appellant's wife). The High Court had declined relief, treating information of arrest as equivalent to communication of grounds.

The Supreme Court examined relevant constitutional provisions and precedents including Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, reiterated that Article 22(1)’s communication requirement must be "meaningful", and held that mere diary entries or informing relatives did not satisfy the obligation. The Court found no contemporaneous record showing that the appellant himself was informed of the grounds; it noted that the police reply conceded that the grounds had been explained to the appellant’s wife and that a remand report or arrest memo did not amount to furnishing grounds to the arrestee. The Court also recorded disturbing factual material that, while hospitalised, the appellant "was handcuffed and chained to the bed" — conduct the Court said violated dignity under Article 21 and directed the State to issue guidelines to prevent recurrence. The appeal was allowed: the arrest of 10 June 2024 was held vitiated; the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, subject to furnishing bond and regular attendance at trial, and the State was directed to frame departmental instructions ensuring Article 22 compliance and prohibition of chaining an accused to a hospital bed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 162 (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024) Case Title: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Basant R., Senior Counsel (for State of Haryana); Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.2)