2025 INSC 162 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024)

VIHAAN KUMAR …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 1 of 36

2.A reference to a few factual aspects would be necessary.

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated

30

th

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

25

th

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 10

th

June 2024 at about 10.30 a.m. at his

office premises on the 3

rd

-5

th

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 11

th

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 11

th

June 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate was the

time of arrest mentioned. The FIR was registered at the

instance of the 2

nd

respondent. We may note here that,

according to the case of the 1

st

respondent, the appellant was

arrested on 10

th

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 4

th

October 2024 passed by this Court records that after

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 2 of 36

the appellant was arrested, he was hospitalised in PGIMS,

Rohtak. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

produced photographs which showed that while he was

admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed and chained to the

hospital bed. Therefore, a notice was issued on 4

th

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

21

st

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

24

th

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 23

rd

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 3 of 36

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 India

1

and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2

,

submitted that on the failure of the 1

st

respondent 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 1

st

respondent state. He submitted that the argument before the

1 (2024) 7 SCC 576

2 (2024) 8 SCC 254

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 4 of 36

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 10

th

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 5 of 36

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 1

st

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.

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 6 of 36

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,

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 7 of 36

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 8 of 36

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 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 sub-Section (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:

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 9 of 36

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 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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 10 of 36

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 11 of 36

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.

(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.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 12 of 36

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 Bansal

1

, this Court dealt

with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’). Section 19 reads thus:

“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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 13 of 36

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 14 of 36

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 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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 15 of 36

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 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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 16 of 36

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 17 of 36

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 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 Bansal

1

was

reiterated by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha

2

. In

paragraphs nos. 28 and 29, this Court held thus:

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 18 of 36

“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. Non-compliance 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)

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 19 of 36

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

charge-sheet 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)

3 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 20 of 36

13.In the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of

India

4

, 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 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

4 (1981) 2 SCC 427

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 21 of 36

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 Bansal

1

,

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. Once a person is

arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When

such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is

necessary that the person concerned must understand on what

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 22 of 36

grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of

conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as

to serve the objects stated above.

14.Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of

the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory

constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of

the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights.

Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and

detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as

soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as

soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation

of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under

Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of

his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no

person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with

the procedure established by law. The procedure established by

law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore,

when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds

of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the

arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right

guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the

mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or

after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to

liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be

rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 23 of 36

of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the

arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be

vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for

a second.

15.We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42

and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal

1

. This

Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of

communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of

arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police officer

communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of arrest have

to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the grounds of

arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no

requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing,

what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the

case of Pankaj Bansal

1

are suggestions that merit

consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may not be

practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as

suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non-

compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the

rights of a person arrested with the interests of the society.

Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with

the requirements of Article 22.

16.An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing

for 1

st

respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 24 of 36

was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet

has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the

appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on

the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect

to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely

nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is

held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article

22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody

of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated.

Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate

an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of

Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot

tinker with the most important safeguards provided under

Article 22.

17.Another argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents

is that even if the appellant is released on the grounds of

violating Article 22, the first respondent can arrest him again.

At this stage, it is not necessary to decide the issue.

18.In the present case, 1

st

respondent relied upon an entry in

the case diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024,

which records that the appellant was arrested after informing

him of the grounds of arrest. For the reasons which will follow

hereafter, we are rejecting the argument made by the 1

st

respondent. If the police want to prove communication of the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 25 of 36

grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to

incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any

other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the

same are informed. Therefore, in a given case, even assuming

that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article

22(1) of the constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in

the case diary, there must be a contemporaneous record, which

records what the grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee

pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not

communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article

22(1) is on the police.

19.An argument was sought to be canvassed that in view of

sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of CrPC, there is an option to

communicate to the person arrested full particulars of the

offence for which he is arrested or the other grounds for the

arrest. Section 50 cannot have the effect of diluting the

requirement of Article 22(1). If held so, Section 50 will attract

the vice of unconstitutionality. Section 50 lays down the

requirement of communicating the full particulars of the

offence for which a person is arrested to him. The ‘other

grounds for such arrest’ referred to in Section 50(1) have

nothing to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in Article

22(1). The requirement of Section 50 is in addition to what is

provided in Article 22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 26 of 36

corresponding provision. Therefore, what we have held about

Section 50 will apply to Section 47 of the BNSS.

20.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) has been

made. The reason is that due to non-compliance, the arrest is

rendered illegal; therefore, the arrestee cannot be remanded

after the arrest is rendered illegal. It is the obligation of all the

Courts to uphold the fundamental rights.

CONCLUSIONS

21.Therefore, we conclude:

a)The requirement of informing a person arrested of

grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article

22(1);

b)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;

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 27 of 36

c)When arrested accused alleges non-compliance 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);

d)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);

e)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; and

f)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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 28 of 36

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.

FACTUAL ADJUDICATION

22.In ground A of the writ petition filed before the High

Court, a specific factual contention has been raised to the

following effect:

“A. BECAUSE the arrest of the Petitioner dated

10.06.2024 is patently illegal inasmuch the

Petitioner was not provided with the grounds or

reasons of arrest.

……………………………………………………………

”

Even the same contention is raised in ground B very

specifically and a further contention is raised due to non-

compliance with the requirement of informing the appellant of

the grounds of arrest, the appellant’s arrest is rendered illegal.

The same is the ground specifically taken in ground E also.

Thus, the appellant repeatedly pleaded violation of Article 22(1)

by explicitly contending that he was not informed of the

grounds of arrest.

23.A status report/reply was filed by Shri Abhimanyu,

Assistant Commissioner of Police before the High Court in

response to the petition. The grounds taken in the writ petition

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 29 of 36

regarding failure to communicate the grounds of arrest are not

dealt with in the reply at all. It is 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.

24.It is pertinent to note the stand Shri Abhimanyu took

while filing a reply to the present Special Leave Petition. He has

described in detail how the appellant was arrested. Most

pertinently in paragraph 11, he stated thus:

“………………………………………………………..

The petitioner, thereafter, gave his phone to

IO to make call at the mobile no. of his wife.

The IO called from the phone of the

petitioner and his wife immediately

responded the phone call. Thus, when

informing Petitioner’s wife about

Petitioner’s arrest, the grounds of arrest

were also explained to her in detail as per

the provisions of Section 50A of CrPC.

Further, when Petitioner’s wife came to meet

the Petitioner, she was again explained the

grounds of arrest in detail and shown the

relevant documents.

………………..……………………………………… ”

(emphasis added)

Thus, the stand taken by Shri Abhimanyu is that the grounds

of arrest were explained to the appellant’s wife in detail, and

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 30 of 36

when she again came to meet the appellant, she was informed

and explained the grounds of arrest. Thus, the stand taken

shows that grounds of arrest were not informed to the appellant

but to his wife. The contention that the appellant’s wife was

informed about the grounds of arrest is an afterthought, as no

such contention has been raised in the reply filed before the

High Court. Communication of the grounds of arrest to the wife

of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate of Article

22(1). As the ground of non-compliance with Article 22(1) has

been specifically pleaded in this appeal, this was the second

opportunity available to the 1

st

respondent to plead and prove

that grounds of arrest were informed to the appellant. However,

it has not been done, and his contention is that the grounds of

arrest were communicated to the appellant’s wife.

25.A contention has been raised in the written argument that

the grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report.

This contention has been raised for the first time in written

submissions before this Court. This is not pleaded in the reply

filed before the High Court and this Court. The police submit a

remand report before the learned 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 filed.

Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 31 of 36

compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of

the grounds of arrest.

26.The stand taken before the High Court was that the

appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest. 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. We have perused the arrest memo

in the present case. 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.

27.Reliance was placed in this regard on the case diary entry

of 10

th

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 1

st

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

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 32 of 36

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.

28.Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have 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.

29.Before we part with this judgment, we must refer to the

shocking treatment given to the appellant by the police. He was

taken to a hospital while he was handcuffed and he was

chained to the hospital bed. This itself is a violation of the

fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of

the rights guaranteed under Article 21. We, therefore, propose

to direct the State Government to issue necessary directions to

ensure that such illegalities are never committed.

30.We must refer to the reasons recorded by the High Court.

Paragraph 7 of the judgment notes the contention regarding

failure to serve grounds of arrest. Paragraph 9 of the impugned

judgment reads thus:

“9. In the above said para, it has been

explicitly mentioned that petitioner was

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 33 of 36

informed regarding his arrest and after that he

was produced before the Judicial Magistrate,

who had given the seven days police custody for

conducting investigation. The allegations about

non-supply of arrest, is simply bald. The

analysis of above, would clearly point out that

there is no violation of Article 22(1) of

Constitution of India because there is nothing to

disbelieve that petitioner was not informed

about ground of arrest.”

31.The learned Single Judge, unfortunately, has equated

information given regarding the appellant’s arrest with the

grounds of arrest. The observation that the allegation of non-

supply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald

allegation is completely uncalled for. All courts, including the

High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a

violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged,

it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention

and decide in one way or the other. When a violation of Article

22(1) is alleged with respect to grounds of arrest, there can be

possible two contentions raised: (a) that the arrested person

was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported

information of grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of

arrest. As far as the first contention is concerned, the person

who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging

that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. If such an

allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden is on the

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 34 of 36

arresting agency or the State to satisfy the court that effective

compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1).

Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is completely

erroneous.

32.In view of the above findings, we are not deciding the issue

of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

33.Hence, the appeal is allowed, and we pass the following

order:

a)The arrest of the appellant shown on 10

th

June 2024 in

connection with FIR no.121 of 2023 dated 25

th

March

2023 registered at Police Station DLF, Sector-29,

Gurugram stands vitiated;

b)Therefore, the appellant shall be forthwith released and

set at liberty;

c)We clarify that the finding of this Court that the arrest of

the appellant stands vitiated will not affect the merits of

the chargesheet and the pending case;

d)We direct the appellant to regularly and punctually attend

the trial court unless his presence is exempted, and

cooperate with the trial court for early disposal of the trial.

We direct the appellant to furnish a bond in accordance

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 35 of 36

with Section 91 of the BNSS to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court within a period of two weeks from his release ;

e)The State of Haryana shall 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

shall amend the existing Rules/guidelines; and

f)A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Home

Secretary of the State of Haryana.

….……………………..J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

….……………………..J.

(Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh)

New Delhi;

February 07, 2025

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 36 of 36

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024)

VIHAAN KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. I had the benefit of going through the draft opinion of my esteemed

Brother Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and I concur with the

analysis and conclusions arrived at. However, I wish to add a few lines

in supplement to the aforesaid opinion.

2. The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds of

arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India, which has also been incorporated in the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Section 19 thereof has

been succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The constitutional

mandate of informing the grounds of arrest to the person arrested in

2

writing has been explained in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as

to be meaningful to serve the intended purpose which has been

reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said constitutional

mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the

CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It may also be noted that the aforesaid

provision of requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to be

purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives

or such other persons of the accused as may be disclosed or nominated

by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information as

provided under Section 50A of the CrPC. As may be noted, this is in

the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of the

CrPC.

3. 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

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

3

addition to his relatives as mentioned above 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 2 2(1) of the Constitution

meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered

illegal.

………………………………………………J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi:

February 07, 2025.