Arrest Without Reasons Is No Arrest: Supreme Court Quashes Custody, Condemns Handcuffing
Case Name: Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 INSC 162
Date of Judgment: 7 February 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Held: The Supreme Court held that non-communication of the grounds of arrest to an accused violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal. Such a constitutional defect cannot be cured by subsequent remand orders or by the filing of a chargesheet. The Court further ruled that the handcuffing and chaining of an accused person to a hospital bed, without compelling justification, is an affront to dignity and a gross violation of Article 21.
Summary: The appellant was arrested on 10 June 2024 on allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code. He challenged his arrest as unconstitutional, alleging that the grounds of arrest were never communicated and that he was produced before a magistrate beyond the 24-hour limit prescribed by Article 22(2). The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his writ petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court found that the State had failed to discharge its burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1). The police’s claim that the grounds were orally conveyed, or communicated to the appellant’s wife, was dismissed as constitutionally irrelevant. The Court relied on precedents including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023 INSC 866) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024 INSC 414), which require meaningful, effective, and preferably written communication of grounds. It concluded that vague oral assertions and afterthought diary entries did not satisfy constitutional standards. Since the arrest was unconstitutional, all subsequent custody and remand orders were declared unlawful.
On the treatment of the appellant while in custody, the Court found that the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to a hospital bed at PGIMS, Rohtak, constituted a shocking violation of Article 21. It underscored that even an accused person retains dignity as part of the right to life. The State was directed to frame guidelines prohibiting such practices in hospitals.
Justice Kotiswar Singh, in a concurring opinion, emphasised that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) is not a procedural nicety but a substantive safeguard for liberty under Article 21. He stressed that written communication of grounds is necessary for an accused to effectively challenge detention. Justice Singh further linked statutory duties under Section 50 and Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) with constitutional protections, holding that failure to comply with these duties undermines both the rights of the accused and their families to secure immediate legal remedies.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declared the arrest of the appellant illegal for violation of Article 22(1), and ordered his immediate release. All subsequent remand orders were quashed. The Court directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines against handcuffing accused persons in hospitals, reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of human dignity.