# Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 162
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abhay S. Oka, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vihaan-kumar-v-state-of-haryana-anr-38936
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

The main issue canvassed by the appellant in this appeal is the
violation of the appellant's right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India as the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his
arrest.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Mandatory requirement
under:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] The requirement of informing a
person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement
of Article 22(1). [Para 21(a)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - What is the manner of
informing the arrested person of his grounds of arrest:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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. [Para 21(b)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - The burden to prove the
compliance of Article 22(1) is on Investigating Officer/Agency:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] When arrested accused alleges noncompliance 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). [Para 21(c)]
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
425
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) and Art.21 - Non-compliance
with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of
the accused:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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). [Para 21(d)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Duty of the Judicial
Magistrate:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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. [Para 21(e)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Duty of the Court:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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. [Para 21(f)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.50 and s.50A - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 - s.47 - Obligatory to inform about the arrest to the
friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person:
Held: [Per Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.] 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
426
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 61,662. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 424 : 2025 INSC 162
Vihaan Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025)
07 February 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The main issue canvassed by the appellant in this appeal is the
violation of the appellant's right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India as the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his
arrest.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Mandatory requirement
under:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] The requirement of informing a
person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement
of Article 22(1). [Para 21(a)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - What is the manner of
informing the arrested person of his grounds of arrest:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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. [Para 21(b)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - The burden to prove the
compliance of Article 22(1) is on Investigating Officer/Agency:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] When arrested accused alleges noncompliance 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). [Para 21(c)]
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
425
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) and Art.21 - Non-compliance
with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of
the accused:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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). [Para 21(d)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Duty of the Judicial
Magistrate:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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. [Para 21(e)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Duty of the Court:
Held: [Per Abhay S. Oka, J.] 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. [Para 21(f)]
Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.50 and s.50A - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 - s.47 - Obligatory to inform about the arrest to the
friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person:
Held: [Per Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.] 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
426
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
427
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
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)]
428
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918 : 1962
SCC OnLine SC 117 - followed.
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 12 SCR 714 : (2024) 7
SCC 576; Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024] 6
SCR 666 : (2024) 8 SCC 254; Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union
of India [1981] 2 SCR 352 : (1981) 2 SCC 427 - relied on.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Article 22(1) of the Constitution; Grounds for arrest; Information of
the grounds of arrest; Non-compliance with the requirements of
Article 22(1); Mandatory safeguards; Grounds of arrest in writing;
Friends; Relatives; Contemporaneous documents; Section 50 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 50A of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Investigating Officer/Agency.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
621 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRWP No. 7533 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Vishal Gosain, Anuroop
Chakravarti, M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Archit Singh, Ms. Jasmine
Damkewala, Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, M/s. Lawfic,
Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Archit Singh, Ms. Rupali Samuel,
Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Deepak Thukral, A.A.G., Sidharth Luthra, Basant R., Sr. Advs.,
Suhaan Mukerji, Adarsh Kumar, Sayandeep Pahari, Kartikeye
Dang, Abhishek Manchanda, Shariq Ansari, Tanmay Sinha,
M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Akshay Amritanshu, Kavinesh RM,
Naman Vashishtha, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf,
Raunak Arora, Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Dipesh Singhal, Kapil Gaba,
Honey Gola, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
429
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
ISSUE INVOLVED
1.
Amongst other issues, the main issue canvassed by the appellant in
this appeal is the violation of the appellant's right under Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India (for short 'the Constitution') as the appellant
was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2.
A reference to a few factual aspects would be necessary. The
challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 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 first information report no.121 of 2023 dated 25th March 2023
registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and
471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
'IPC'). According to the appellant's case, he was arrested on 10th
June 2024 at about 10.30 a.m. at his office premises on the 3rd-5th
floor of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana. He was taken to DLF
Police Station, Section 29, Gurugram. He was allegedly produced
before the learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th
June 2024 at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, there was a violation of Article
22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'). The allegation is that
neither in the remand report nor in the order dated 11th June 2024
passed by the learned Magistrate was the time of arrest mentioned.
The FIR was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent. We
may note here that, according to the case of the 1st respondent, the
appellant was arrested on 10th June 2024 at 6.00 p.m. Therefore,
compliance with the requirement of Article 22(2) was made.
3.
There is another very serious factual aspect. The order dated 4th
October 2024 passed by this Court records that after the appellant
was arrested, he was hospitalised in PGIMS, Rohtak. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant produced photographs which
430
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
showed that while he was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed
and chained to the hospital bed. Therefore, a notice was issued on 4th
October 2024 to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, calling upon
him to file an affidavit stating whether the appellant was handcuffed
and chained to the hospital bed. The order dated 21st October 2024
records the admission of the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS that
when the appellant was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed
and chained to the bed. On this aspect, we may note that an affidavit
was filed on 24th October 2024 by Shri Abhimanyu, HPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, EOW I and II, Gurugram, Haryana. The
affidavit states that the officials who were deployed to escort the
appellant to PGIMS have been suspended, and a departmental
inquiry was ordered against them by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police on 23rd October 2024.
SUBMISSIONS
4.
The learned senior counsel, Shri Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf
of the appellant, invited our attention to the averments made in the
writ petition filed before the High Court and, particularly, the grounds
therein. He pointed out that grounds A and B contain a specific
averment that the appellant was not informed about the grounds
of arrest or reasons for arrest, and hence, there was a violation of
Section 50 of CrPC. Further, Article 22(1) has also been violated. He
pointed out that even in paragraph 13, there is a specific assertion
to that effect. He invited our attention to the counter affidavit/status
report filed by Shri Abhimanyu, Assistant Commissioner of Police,
before the High Court. He submitted that it is not even a case made
out by him that grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant
in some form. Moreover, the specific averment in the petition that
the grounds of arrest were not informed to the appellant has not
been denied. He pointed out that the only pleading was that the
appellant's wife was informed about the arrest. Therefore, learned
senior counsel, by relying upon decisions of this Court in the case of
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India1 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi),2 submitted that on the failure of the 1st respondent
1
(2024) 7 SCC 576
2
(2024) 8 SCC 254
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
431
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
to comply with the mandate of Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC,
the arrest of the appellant is rendered illegal. He also urged that
there was a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution as he was
not produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his
arrest. Therefore, he must be forthwith set at liberty.
5.
Learned senior counsel Shri Basant R. represented the 1st respondent
state. He submitted that the argument before the High Court as
noted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned
judgment is that the grounds of arrest were not handed over to him
in compliance with the provisions of law. He submitted that it was not
argued that grounds of arrest were not even orally communicated
as there is no requirement under Article 22(1) or in Section 50
of CrPC to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in
writing. Moreover, he submitted that the mandate of Section 50 is
that either the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested
must be communicated to an arrestee or the grounds of arrest. He
invited our attention to the arrest memo, which contains details of
the offence, time and date of arrest, etc. He pointed out that the
case diaries were placed before the High Court and in fact, the High
Court examined the case diaries. He submitted that in the daily diary,
an entry was made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, noting that the
appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest.
He submitted that though the High Court may not have recorded a
finding based on the case diary, the fact remains that the learned
Single Judge perused the diary and the entry mentioned above. In
the written submissions, he urged that the grounds of arrest have
been set out in the remand report dated 11th June 2024. He urged
that there is a delay of more than 2 months in raising a contention
regarding the violation of Article 22(1). He submitted that the appellant
is now in custody under the process issued on the charge sheet. He
submitted that there was a compliance made with the requirement
of Article 22(2).
6.
Learned senior counsel Shri Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the
2nd respondent, supported the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent. He submitted that the case diary
maintained by the police is a contemporaneous record which records
that grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant. Therefore,
there is no reason to disbelieve the stand of the police.
432
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ARRESTING A PERSON
WITHOUT WARRANT
7.
Sub-Section (1) of Section 41 of CrPC lists cases where police may
arrest a person without a warrant. The corresponding provision in
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS')
is Section 35. Section 41 of CrPC reads thus:
"41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(1) Any
police officer may without an order from a Magistrate
and without a warrant, arrest any person-
(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a
cognizable offence;
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made,
or credible information has been received, or a reasonable
suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable
offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may be less than seven years or which may extend to
seven years whether with or without fine, if the following
conditions are satisfied, namely:-
(i)
the police officer has reason to believe on the basis
of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such
person has committed the said offence;
(ii)
the police office is satisfied that such arrest is
necessary-
(a) to prevent such person from committing any
further offence; or
(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or
(c)
to prevent such person from causing the evidence
of the offence to disappear or tampering with
such evidence in any manner; or
(d) to prevent such person from making any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the police officer; or
(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence
in the Court whenever required cannot be
ensured,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
433
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
and the police officer shall record while making
such arrest, his reasons in writing.
Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases
where the arrest of a person is not required
under the provisions of this sub-section, record
the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
(ba) against whom credible information has been
received that he has committed a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to more than seven years whether with or
without fine or with death sentence and the police
officer has reason to believe on the basis of that
information that such person has committed the said
offence;
(c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under
this Code or by order of the State Government; or
(d) in whose possession anything is found which may
reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who
may reasonably be suspected of having committed an
offence with reference to such thing; or
(e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution
of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape,
from lawful custody; or
(f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from
any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or
(g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a
reasonable complaint has been made, or credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion
exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed
at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would
have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is,
under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable
to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or
(h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of
any rule made under sub-section (5) of Section 356; or
(i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral,
has been received from another police officer, provided
434
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested
and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to
be made and it appears therefrom that the person might
lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who
issued the requisition.
(2) Subject to the provisions of Section 42, no person
concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom
a complaint has been made or credible information has
been received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having
so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant
or order of a Magistrate."
(emphasis added)
8.
In this case, a commission of a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years
has been alleged against the appellant. Hence, clause (ba) of subSection (1) of Section 41 [clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section
35 of the BNSS] will apply. Therefore, a police officer can arrest a
person without an order of a Magistrate or warrant subject to the
following conditions:
a)
Credible information has been received against the person
that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment for more than seven years and
b)
The police officer has reason to believe on the basis of the
information received that such a person has committed the
offence.
Hence, a police officer cannot casually arrest a person against
whom the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment
for more than seven years is alleged. He can arrest provided twin
conditions in clause (ba) are satisfied. The emphasis is on "credible
information". He cannot arrest a person under clause (ba) unless
credible information is received.
9.
Article 22 of the Constitution reads thus:
"22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases.-(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained
in custody without being informed, as soon as may
be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
435
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a
legal practitioner of his choice.
(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.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply-
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy
alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any
law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise
the detention of a person for a longer period than three
months unless-
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or
have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges
of a High Court has reported before the expiration
of the said period of three months that there is in its
opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise
the detention of any person beyond the maximum
period prescribed by any law made by Parliament
under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of any law made by Parliament under
sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an
order made under any law providing for preventive
detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon
as may be, communicate to such person the grounds
on which the order has been made and shall afford
him the earliest opportunity of making a representation
against the order.
436
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making
any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose
facts which such authority considers to be against the
public interest to disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe-
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or
classes of cases in which, a person may be detained
for a period longer than three months under any law
providing for preventive detention without obtaining
the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with
the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any
class or classes of cases be detained under any law
providing for preventive detention; and
(c)
the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board
in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4)."
(emphasis added)
Clause (1) of Article 22 provides that no person who is arrested shall
be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be,
of the grounds for such arrest.
Then comes Section 50 of CrPC (Section 47 of the BNSS), which
reads thus:
"50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of
arrest and of right to bail.-(1) 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.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any
person other than a person accused of a non-bailable
offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is
entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange
for sureties on his behalf."
10. As far as Article 22(1) is concerned, the legal position is well settled.
In the case of Pankaj Bansal1, this Court dealt with Section 19 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'the PMLA').
Section 19 reads thus:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
437
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
"19. Power to arrest.-(1) If the Director, Deputy Director,
Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government by general or special
order, has on the basis of material in his possession,
reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded
in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence
punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and
shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds
for such arrest.
(2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or
any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such
person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order
along with the material in his possession, referred to in
that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed
envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such
Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material
for such period, as may be prescribed.
(3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall,
within twenty-four hours, be taken to a [Special Court or]
Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the
case may be, having jurisdiction:
Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude
the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest
to the [Special Court or] Magistrate's Court."
(emphasis added)
There are two parts of Section 19(1). The first part is the requirement
of recording in writing the reason to believe that any person has been
guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. No such requirement
of recording in writing the reason to believe is found in clause (ba)
of Section 41(1). The second requirement incorporated in Section
19(1) is that the person arrested shall be informed of the grounds of
such arrest as soon as may be. The second part is the requirement
incorporated in Article 22(1). Therefore, even under Section 19(1) of
PMLA, there is a requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds
of arrest. This decision deals with and interprets Article 22(1). In
paragraph 38 of the decision, this Court held thus:
"38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1)
of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
438
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental
right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode
of conveying information of the grounds of arrest
must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the
intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA
enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof
to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the
twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such
a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin
conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the
court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the
Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release,
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly,
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the
arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the
authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and
the basis for the officer's "reason to believe" that he/she
is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act.
It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these
facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and
prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to
believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to
avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the
grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the
Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve
this higher purpose and must be given due importance."
(emphasis added)
In the said decision, this Court in paragraphs 42 and 43 observed thus:
"42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why
a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not
be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of
course and without exception. There are two primary
reasons as to why this would be the advisable course
of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly,
in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out
to the arrested person or read by such person with
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
439
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given
case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested
person against the word of the authorised officer as
to whether or not there is due and proper compliance
in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation
insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims
that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds
of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that
is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document.
Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the
arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V.
Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1] . Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and
the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by
furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by
the authorised officer in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, to
the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead
of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorised
officer.
43. The second reason as to why this would be the
proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective
underlying such information being given to the
arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not
only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is
being arrested but also to enable such person to seek
legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the
court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/
she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V.
Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 :
(2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] are placed on record and we find that
the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of
arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj
Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before
this Court, but it was contended that they were produced
at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier,
this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the
event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it
would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or
Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had
read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail
440
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been
arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of
mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the
contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/
her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory
protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the
authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading
of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and
detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional
requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate
under Section 19(1) PMLA."
(emphasis added)
11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 was reiterated by this
Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha2. 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 of the
constitutional provisions require that the "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 offence or a person placed under
preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1)
and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct
and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and
statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the
detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be."
(emphasis added)
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
441
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
12. This Court held that the language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5)
regarding communication of the grounds is identical, and therefore,
this Court held that interpretation of Article 22(5) made by the
Constitution Bench in the case of Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra,3
shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest
is concerned. We may also note here that in paragraph 21, in the
case of Prabir Purkayastha,2 this Court also dealt with the effect
of violation of Article 22(1) by holding that any infringement of this
fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.
Paragraph 21 reads thus:
"21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a chargesheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate
the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed
at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of
initial police custody remand to the accused."
(emphasis added)
13. In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India4, in
paragraph 20, this Court held thus:
"20. It is an admitted position that the detenu does not
know English. The grounds of detention, which were
served on the detenu, have been drawn up in English. It
is true that Shri C.L. Antali, Police Inspector, who served
the grounds of detention on the detenu, has filed an
affidavit stating that he had fully explained the grounds
of detention in Gujarati to the detenu. But, that is not a
sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution, which requires that the grounds of detention
must be "communicated" to the detenu. "Communicate"
is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of
the basic facts constituting the "grounds" should be
imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing
3
1962 SCC OnLine SC 117
4
(1981) 2 SCC 427
442
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in a language which he understands. The whole purpose
of communicating the "ground" to the detenu is to enable
him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If
the "grounds" are only verbally explained to the detenu
and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which
he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the
constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed. If any
authority is needed on this point, which is so obvious from
Article 22(5), reference may be made to the decisions
of this Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962
Supp 2 SCR 918 : AIR 1962 SC 911 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 797]
and Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate [(1969) 1 SCR
227 : AIR 1969 SC 43 : 1969 Cri LJ 274] ."
 (emphasis added)
Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned, compliance can be made
by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting
the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The grounds should be
effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in
which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the
grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee
understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj Bansal1, this Court
held that the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily
be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under
Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the grounds
of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every
person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be
defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated
to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively
exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement incorporated
in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for arresting the person
without a warrant exist.