News Today Logo

Posted 10 Feb 2025

2 min read

In Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana case, SC ruled that it was unlawful for police to arrest an accused person without providing legal grounds during arrest.

  • However, ruling clarified that while arrest might be vitiated, the investigation, chargesheet, and trial remain valid.

Key Highlights of Judgement

  • Violation of Fundamental Rights: Failure to inform the grounds of arrest violates fundamental rights of accused under Articles 21 and 22(1).  
    • Article 21: No person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law.
    • Article 22(1): A person arrested must be informed of the reasons immediately and has right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
  • Section 50A of CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS): Under this, court emphasized the importance of informing accused person’s friends, relatives, or nominated persons about grounds of arrest.
  • Bail Implications: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) can be grounds for granting bail, overriding statutory restrictions.
  • Clear Communication of Grounds in a language the arrestee understands.
  • Burden of Proof: Investigating Officer/Agency must prove compliance with Article 22(1) if challenged.

Related Judgements of Supreme Court

  • Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India and others (2023): Grounds of arrest must be supplied to accused in writing will also apply in cases registered under UAPA 1967.
  • Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) case (2024): Communication of grounds of arrest or detention is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation.
  • Tags :
  • Article 22 (1)
  • Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana case
Watch News Today
Width resize handle
Height resize handle

Search Notes

Filter Notes

No notes yet

Create your first note to get started.

No notes found

Try adjusting your search criteria.

Subscribe for Premium Features