TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arrest illegal if grounds not communicated under Article 22(1), violates Article 21 liberty rights, immediate release mandated</h1> <h3>VIHAAN KUMAR Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.</h3> VIHAAN KUMAR Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. - 2025 INSC 162 ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the appellant's arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest. Additionally, the Court examined whether the appellant's treatment during arrest and subsequent detention, including being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISViolation of Article 22(1) - Communication of Grounds of Arrest- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds for arrest. Section 50 of the CrPC mandates that the arresting officer communicate the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which emphasize the necessity of meaningful communication of arrest grounds.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court underscored that the requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right. The communication must be meaningful, ensuring the arrested person fully understands the reasons for arrest. The Court noted that mere verbal communication or informing a third party does not suffice.- Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, a claim not adequately refuted by the respondents. The police only informed the appellant's wife, which the Court found insufficient. The arrest memo and case diary did not contain the grounds of arrest, further supporting the appellant's claim.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha to conclude that the appellant's arrest violated Article 22(1) due to the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest directly to him.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the grounds were communicated to the appellant's wife and included in the remand report. The Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that communication must be directly to the arrestee and contemporaneous with the arrest.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellant's arrest was illegal due to the violation of Article 22(1), necessitating his immediate release.Violation of Article 21 - Treatment During Detention- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found the appellant's treatment, being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, violated his dignity and Article 21 rights. The Court emphasized that such treatment is unacceptable and directed the State to issue guidelines to prevent similar occurrences.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the admission by the Medical Superintendent and the affidavit from the Assistant Commissioner of Police acknowledging the appellant's treatment.- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Article 21 principles to determine that the appellant's treatment was a violation of his fundamental rights.- Conclusions: The Court directed the State to ensure such violations do not recur, emphasizing the need for guidelines to uphold constitutional safeguards.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Court held that the requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). Non-compliance renders the arrest illegal and violates Article 21.- The Court emphasized that the communication of arrest grounds must be meaningful, in a language understood by the arrestee, and directly to the arrestee.- The Court noted that informing a third party, such as the arrestee's spouse, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement.- The Court reiterated that any violation of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody, regardless of subsequent legal processes such as remand or chargesheet filing.- The Court directed the appellant's immediate release due to the violation of his constitutional rights.- The Court instructed the State to issue guidelines to prevent similar violations in the future, particularly regarding the treatment of detainees and adherence to constitutional safeguards.
TaxTMI 