Grounds of Arrest Not Told to the Accused Vitiate Arrest and Remand: Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar

Published: 20 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1). Failure vitiates the arrest and every remand order after it, and a later charge sheet cannot cure it. Telling the accused's wife, a remand report or a vague case-diary entry is no compliance. It ordered Vihaan Kumar's release and condemned his being chained to a hospital bed (paras 21, 24-29, 33).

Grounds of Arrest Not Told to the Accused Vitiate Arrest and Remand: Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.

2025 INSC 162

Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 7 February 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Relevant Acts & Sections: Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41(1)(ba), 50 and 50A; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 35, 47 and 91

Final Outcome

Appeal allowed: the arrest of 10.06.2024 held vitiated and the appellant ordered to be released forthwith, without affecting the charge sheet or trial, on a bond under Section 91 BNSS; Haryana directed to issue instructions against chaining accused persons to hospital beds and to ensure Article 22 safeguards (para 33).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 07.02.2025

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Grounds of arrest must be conveyed effectively, in a language the arrestee understands (paras 13, 21).
Once non-compliance is alleged, the police must prove that Article 22(1) was complied with (paras 21, 31).
Informing a relative, an arrest memo or a remand report does not satisfy Article 22(1) (paras 24-26).
A charge sheet does not validate an illegal arrest, but the investigation and trial survive (paras 16, 21).
Magistrates must check compliance at remand; a breach is a ground for bail despite statutory limits (paras 20-21).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Vihaan Kumar was arrested on 10.06.2024 in a 2023 Gurugram FIR under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC; he said he was arrested at 10.30 a.m. and produced before the Magistrate at 3.30 p.m. the next day, while the police put the arrest at 6.00 p.m. (para 2). The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 30.08.2024, rejected his writ petition alleging he was never told the grounds of arrest (paras 2, 22, 30). While in custody at PGIMS, Rohtak, he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed, as the Medical Superintendent admitted (para 3).

Court's Findings

Under Article 22(1), the grounds of arrest must be communicated effectively, giving sufficient knowledge of the basic facts in a language the arrestee understands; writing is not required, though Pankaj Bansal's suggestion of written grounds merits consideration (paras 13, 15). Breach violates Articles 21 and 22, vitiates the arrest, and the person cannot stay in custody 'even for a second' (para 14). A charge sheet and cognizance order cannot validate such an arrest (para 16). Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS) adds to Article 22(1) and cannot dilute it (para 19). Once breach is alleged, the police must prove compliance, and a diary entry helps only with a contemporaneous record of the grounds (paras 18, 31). Telling the wife is no compliance; a remand report is not served on the accused; the arrest memo had no grounds; and the diary plea was an afterthought (paras 24-27). Magistrates must check compliance at remand (para 20). Chaining the appellant to a hospital bed violated his right to dignity under Article 21 (para 29). Concurring, Kotiswar Singh J. added that the grounds should also be given in writing to relatives or persons nominated under Section 50A CrPC.

Legal Principle

Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest, effectively and in a language he understands, is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); non-compliance vitiates the arrest and remand and entitles the arrestee to release even where statutory bail restrictions apply, though the investigation, charge sheet and trial survive (para 21).

Precedents Relied Upon

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 10, 13, 15
Communicating the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) must be meaningful so as to serve its purpose; furnishing the grounds in writing is the proper course.
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 11-12
The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) is sacrosanct; its breach vitiates the arrest and remand, and a later charge sheet does not validate it.
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12
Constitution Bench interpretation of Article 22(5) on communicating grounds, held in Prabir Purkayastha to apply equally to Article 22(1).

View all precedents (4)

Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
'Communicate' is a strong word: sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be imparted effectively and fully, in a language the person understands.

Statutory Provisions

BNSS CrPC Constitution of India Section 50 (CrPC) Section 41 (CrPC) Section 47 (BNSS) Section 35 (BNSS) Article 21 (Constitution of India) Article 22 (Constitution of India)