“The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law.”
Introduction
Imagine being taken into custody, unaware of the charges against you, deprived of your basic rights and subjected to inhumane treatment. For many, this scenario might sound like some incident from the pre independence era but it remains a stark reality in India’s criminal justice system. Till date arbitrary arrests, vague justifications and mechanical remand orders have plagued the legal system, often reducing the constitutional safeguards to mere formalities.
Recently, in Vihaan Kumar versus State of Haryana & Anr.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set a firm boundary on what constitutes an illegal arrest, making it clear that no person can be detained without being explicitly informed of the reasons for their arrest. The main issue in the said ruling is the violation of the Appellant’s fundamental right under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India (“the Constitution”) as the Appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.
Article 22 establishes procedural safeguards to protect individuals from illegal arrest or detention. It serves as a safeguard against miscarriages of justice by ensuring a system of checks and balances on the authority of the police officers. Additionally, Article 22 outlines the rights of individuals who have been illegally arrested or detained, ensuring fairness and accountability in the legal process.
Facts of the Case
The challenge in the present appeal is to the Judgement 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 a First Informant Report (“FIR”) being C.R. No. 121 of 2023 dated 25th March, 2023 for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Decision by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the Appellant’s plea challenging the legality of his arrest. The Appellant had approached the Hon’ble High Court arguing that his arrest was unconstitutional as he was never informed about the grounds of his arrest. The Appellant further contended that the arrest memo, remand report and the case diary merely recorded the fact of his arrest but failed to specify whether he was informed of the reasons for his arrest. The Respondent State submitted that the Appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest and that the details of the arrest were recorded in the arrest memo, remand report and in the case diary. The Respondent further relied on an entry in the case diary stating that the Appellant was informed of the grounds for his arrest at 6:10 pm on 10th June, 2024.
The Hon’ble High Court while analysing the contentions, observed that the arrest memo contained sufficient details including the name of the arrested person, his address, particulars of the FIR, the sections under which he was charged, the place, date and time of arrest, the name of the arresting officer and the details of the person to whom the information about the arrest was give. The Hon’ble High Court equated this information with compliance under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution ruling that since the wife of the Appellant was informed regarding the arrest, there was no violation of constitutional rights.
It further stated that mere allegation of non-communication of the grounds of arrest is a bald and unsubstantiated claim. The Hon’ble High Court further relied on the police case diary entry which revealed that the Appellant had been informed on the grounds of arrest even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the arrest memo, the Hon’ble High Court found no reason to disbelieve the claims made by the police. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court held that an arrest memo is distinct from a remand report but when read together, they provide a comprehensive record of an arrest. It further held that the mention of grounds of arrest in the remand report satisfied the legal requirement and there was no legal mandate requiring the grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing.
The Appellant had also alleged that he was chained o a hospital bed while receiving treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak however, the Hon’ble High Court refused to intervene stating that it was a separate issue that should be addressed through departmental inquiry.
It further stated that mere allegation of non-communication of the grounds of arrest is a bald and unsubstantiated claim. The Hon’ble High Court further relied on the police case diary entry which revealed that the Appellant had been informed on the grounds of arrest even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the arrest memo, the Hon’ble High Court found no reason to disbelieve the claims made by the police. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court held that an arrest memo is distinct from a remand report but when read together, they provide a comprehensive record of an arrest. It further held that the mention of grounds of arrest in the remand report satisfied the legal requirement and there was no legal mandate requiring the grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing.
The Appellant had also alleged that he was chained o a hospital bed while receiving treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak however, the Hon’ble High Court refused to intervene stating that it was a separate issue that should be addressed through departmental inquiry.
The contentions made by the Appellant
According to the Appellant’s case, he was arrested on 10th June, 2024 at about 10:30 am at his office premises in Gurugram, Haryana. He was thereafter taken to DLF Police Station and was allegedly produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June, 2024 at 3:30 pm. Therefore, it was alleged that there was a violation of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 are reproduced hereinunder:
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
(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.”
“50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.
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.”
Furthermore, the allegation was that the time of arrest was not mentioned in the remand report nor in the Order dated 11th June, 2024 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate.
The present case also exposed a grave violation of human right when it was revealed that after his arrest, the Appellant was hospitalised at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The Hon’ble Bench took note of this shocking treatment and issued a notice to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak calling upon him to file an affidavit stating whether the Appellant was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. The hospital authorities admitted that the Appellant had indeed been handcuffed and chained to the bed. Thereafter an affidavit was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW I and II, Gurugram, Haryana stating that the officials who were deployed to escort the Appellant to PGIMS have been suspended and that a departmental inquiry was ordered against them by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
The contentions made by the Appellant
According to the Appellant’s case, he was arrested on 10th June, 2024 at about 10:30 am at his office premises in Gurugram, Haryana. He was thereafter taken to DLF Police Station and was allegedly produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June, 2024 at 3:30 pm. Therefore, it was alleged that there was a violation of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 are reproduced hereinunder:
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
(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.”
“50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.
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.”
Furthermore, the allegation was that the time of arrest was not mentioned in the remand report nor in the Order dated 11th June, 2024 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate.
The present case also exposed a grave violation of human right when it was revealed that after his arrest, the Appellant was hospitalised at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The Hon’ble Bench took note of this shocking treatment and issued a notice to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak calling upon him to file an affidavit stating whether the Appellant was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. The hospital authorities admitted that the Appellant had indeed been handcuffed and chained to the bed. Thereafter an affidavit was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW I and II, Gurugram, Haryana stating that the officials who were deployed to escort the Appellant to PGIMS have been suspended and that a departmental inquiry was ordered against them by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
Issues framed
Was the Appellant made aware of the reasons for his arrest?
The Hon’ble Bench held that the Appellant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest thus violating Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was informed at 6:10 pm on 10th June, 2024 as recorded in the police diary, however, the Hon’ble Bench rejected the argument stating that the diary entry was vague and was an afterthought as it was never pleaded before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble Bench in paragraph 27 of the Judgement held that -
“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.”
Does mentioning the grounds of arrest in remand report or arrest memo satisfy the requirement under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the remand report found that the same was submitted to the Learned Magistrate and not to the present Appellant. Since the Appellant was not provided with a copy of the remand report at the time of the arrest, it cannot act as a substitute for informing him of the grounds of arrest. Further, the arrest memo only records administrative details such as the time, place and sections applied in the FIR however, it does not contain specific reasons for the arrest. The Hon’ble Court further held that 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.
Apart from the violation of the constitutional safeguards, the Hon’ble Bench strongly condemned the inhumane treatment of the Appellant while in custody. The Hon’ble Court ruled that such treatment was gross violation of human dignity and the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Bench directed the Respondent State to issue new guidelines to prevent such human rights violations.
In light of these findings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgement and ordered the immediate release of the Appellant.
Impact of this Landmark Judgement
The Hon’ble Apex Court’s ruling in the present case is not just a ruling on one individual’s arrest, it is a precedent that shall reshape the legal landscape in India regarding arrests, police procedures and personal liberties. The impact of this Judgement is both immediate and enduring in the criminal justice sphere:
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement is a constitutional wake up call which unequivocally affirms that an arrest without informing the accused of his/her ground is directly an infringement of the fundamental rights. Beyond strengthening procedural safeguards, the decision reiterates the importance of treating all individuals with dignity including those in custody. Overall, this Judgement serves as a reminder that fundamental rights form the bedrock of India’s criminal justice system.
By - Soumya Kamat
Top