Vihaan Kumar vs. the State of Haryana (2025)

Vihaan Kumar vs. the State of Haryana (2025)

In the landmark judgement of Vihaan Kumer vs. the State of Haryana (2025), the Supreme Court issued the guidelines to protect rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court further ruled that it was unlawful to arrest a person without informing him about the grounds for arrest. It is mandatory to inform about the grounds for arrest; it is a constitutional requirement.  

Brief details on Vihaan Kumar vs. the State of Haryana 

Name of the Case Vihaan Kumar vs. the State of Haryana 
Case Number Crl.A. No.-000621-000621 – 2025
Diary Number 43293/2024
Parties of the Case Appellant – Vihaan KumarRespondent – State of Haryana
Advocates of parties  Appellant – Senior Advocate Kapil SibalRespondent – Senior Counsel Basant R. 
Equivalent Citations Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024
Type of the Case Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 
Court Supreme Court of India
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of IndiaSection 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 41 of the CrPC (now Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. OkaHon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Judgement Date  7/02/2025

Background of the case

In this case, Vihaan Kumar was arrested in relation to an alleged financial fraud. The accused was taken to DLF police station. The FIR was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The arrest happened on 10th June in the morning, while the accused was presented in front of the Magistrate on 11th June in the afternoon. The accused claimed that this violated his right under Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution, as he was not presented before the Magistrate for more than 24 hours. Later the accused was also handcuffed and chained when he was admitted to the hospital. 

Legal provisions involved in the case

Sections/Articles  Explanation
Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India This article states that no person shall be arrested without being informed of the grounds of the arrest. The accused has the right to consult a legal practitioner. Every person who is arrested has to be presented in front of the magistrate within 24 hours. 
Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Any person who is arrested has the right to be informed on what grounds the arrest is being made. They also have the right to bail as well. 
Section 41 of the CrPC (now Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) This provision states the instance when a person can be arrested without a warrant. 

Key judgments cited in the case

Key issues involved in Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana 

  1. Whether Article 22(1) was violated due to failure in informing the appellant the grounds of arrest?
  2. Whether handcuffing and chaining in hospital infringed the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 21?
  3. Whether the delay in bringing the appellant in front of the Magistrate violates Article 22(2)?

Grounds raised by appellant in Vihaan Kumar vs. the State of Haryana 

The appellant claimed that the arrest was made in the morning and he was presented in front of the Magistrat after 24 hours had passed.The detention of the accused was more than 24 hours, which infringed Section 57 of the CrPC. The order and report were also dated 11th June, and the arresting time was not mentioned. The appellant also claimed that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest. Further, he was also chained and handcuffed when he was in the hospital. The counsel of the appellant submitted photos as evidence in the court to prove this claim. 

Grounds raised by the respondent in Vihaan Kumar vs. the State of Haryana 

The respondent claimed that they had arrested the accused in the evening and also produced him in front of the court within 24 hours. It was admitted by the medical superintendent that they had handcuffed the appellant; however, an action regarding the same was taken. The State had taken corrective measures when they came to know about the custodial mistreatment.   

Judgement in Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana

An immediate release was ordered by the court stating that the arrest was illegal as the appellant was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. The appellant’s fundamental rights were violated. The Supreme Court stated that it is very vital to inform the grounds of arrest to the person in a language which he understands. It is a compulsory constitutional duty. It is not valid if the reason for arrest is communicated to someone else also.

An arrest can’t be later justified even if the charge sheet is filed as stated by the court. Before the remand is approved, the Magistrate should ensure that it is in compliance. The burden of proof lies on the police to prove the grounds of arrest. The court also ordered the government of Haryana to issue guidelines to stop illegal chaining and handcuffing, especially in hospitals. 

Conclusion

This landmark ruling will have a long-lasting impact on the criminal system in India. This case has raised the standards when it comes to protection of human rights and police procedures. With this judgement significant changes are brought to the Indian criminal system, as this case makes courts and police more accountable. The Apex Court in this case clearly states that the police has to explain the reason for arrest to the accused in the language that he understands. 

The court also emphasised that the police have to use handcuffs/chains only in extreme conditions (rare instances). This judgement led to updates in arrest processes in many states of the country, and new laws were to be followed more strictly.  

References

Categories

Related Posts

Linkedin-in