The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), reaffirmed fundamental rights against arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment. The judgment, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh on February 7, 2025, held that the appellant's arrest was unconstitutional due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

This case marks a significant assertion of constitutional protections, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to due process in arrests and detentions.

Case Background:
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested on June 10, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, which alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was taken into custody by the Haryana Police at 10:30 AM from his office premises in Gurugram and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM - exceeding the 24-hour requirement under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of BNSS.

A particularly concerning aspect of the case was the appellant's treatment in custody. He was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while being admitted to PGIMS, Rohtak, violating his right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Key Legal Issues:
  • Violation of Article 22(1) - Failure to Inform Grounds of Arrest:
    • The primary contention was that the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
    • The state argued that the appellant's wife was informed of the arrest, but the Supreme Court held that this was inadequate.
    • The judgment clarified that the arrested individual must be directly informed of the grounds of arrest in a language they understand.
  • Violation of Article 22(2) - Delay in Producing Before Magistrate:
    • The appellant was produced before the magistrate beyond the prescribed 24-hour period.
    • Although the police claimed he was arrested at 6:00 PM on June 10, 2024, discrepancies in police records led the court to conclude that procedural violations had occurred.
  • Violation of Article 21: Inhumane Treatment in Custody
    • The appellant was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while receiving medical care.
    • The court held that this act violated his fundamental right to dignity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Supreme Court's Findings and Observations:
  • Non-Compliance with Constitutional and Statutory Mandates:
    • The police failed to inform the appellant of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC (or Section 47 BNSS under the new legal framework).
    • Informing the appellant's wife did not fulfill the constitutional requirement.
  • Illegal Detention and Unlawful Custody:
    • The appellant's delayed production before a magistrate violated Article 22(2) and Section 57 of BNSS.
    • An unconstitutional arrest cannot be validated by subsequent judicial custody or the filing of a charge sheet.
  • Human Dignity and Police Accountability:
    • The handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to a hospital bed was found to be a direct violation of Article 21.
    • The court directed the Haryana Police to issue guidelines preventing such practices in the future.
• Court's Decision:
  • Declaration of the Arrest as Illegal:
    • The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of the appellant on June 10, 2024, was unconstitutional and vitiated due to procedural lapses.
  • Immediate Release of the Appellant:
    • Given the violations of fundamental rights, the court ordered the immediate release of the appellant.
    • However, it clarified that this ruling would not impact the ongoing criminal proceedings based on the charge sheet.
  • Police Accountability and Reforms:
    • The Haryana Police was directed to issue departmental instructions ensuring compliance with constitutional safeguards.
    • Specific emphasis was placed on preventing inhumane treatment of detainees, particularly the practice of handcuffing and chaining hospitalized individuals.
  • Judicial Oversight in Arrests:
    • The court reiterated that magistrates must ensure compliance with Article 22(1) before remanding an accused to custody.
    • Future violations of this mandate should lead to immediate release.
• Significance of the Judgment:
  • This ruling strengthens constitutional protections against arbitrary arrests and custodial mistreatment.
  • It reinforces the principle that:
    • Arrest must be justified and transparent.
    • Communication of arrest grounds must be meaningful and direct.
    • Judicial oversight is essential to prevent abuses of power.
    • No procedural violation can be retrospectively corrected by continued custody or charge-sheet filing.

The case serves as a reminder that the police must adhere to due process, and violations of fundamental rights will result in judicial intervention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. stands as a pivotal moment, underscoring the critical role of constitutional protections within the sphere of criminal justice. By deeming the arrest unlawful, the court has strengthened the principles of police accountability and the necessity of vigilant judicial review, safeguarding individual liberties against potential abuse.

This landmark judgment is poised to establish a significant legal precedent, ensuring that fundamental rights are robustly defended against arbitrary actions by the state. The ruling highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and preventing unjust deprivation of freedom, setting a higher standard for law enforcement practices and judicial scrutiny in similar cases going forward.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565