Criminal Procedure Code

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana

2025 INSC 162

Facts

Vihaan Kumar was arrested by Haryana Police in connection with a criminal case.
He alleged that the police did not properly communicate the grounds of arrest.
The arrest memo contained formal details, but the record did not satisfactorily establish that the factual grounds had actually been explained to him.
The State relied upon:
police documents;
signatures;
and general knowledge of the case to argue that the constitutional requirement had been met.
The legality of the arrest and subsequent custody reached the Supreme Court.
The Court considered the effect of Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha beyond arrests made under special statutes.

Whether Article 22(1) applies with equal force to arrests under ordinary criminal law.
What constitutes proper communication of grounds of arrest.
Who bears the burden of proving compliance.
Whether non-compliance invalidates the arrest and remand.

Article 22(1) applies to every arrest, whether made under:
the general criminal law;
the CrPC or BNSS;
or a special statute.
The arrested person must be informed of the grounds:
promptly;
clearly;
in a language understood;
and with enough factual detail to permit legal challenge.
A formal arrest memo is not automatically equivalent to communication of grounds.
The police must distinguish between:
the existence of an FIR;
reasons why arrest is considered necessary;
and the specific grounds linking the person to the alleged offence.
Where legality is challenged, the State must demonstrate compliance through reliable contemporaneous material.
Failure to communicate the grounds violates Article 22(1) and renders the arrest illegal.
Judicial remand cannot cure a foundationally illegal arrest.
BNSS Section 47 contains the statutory obligation to communicate grounds, but it must be interpreted consistently with Article 22(1). ()

The State sought to rely on the accused’s signature on arrest-related documents.
The Supreme Court held that a signature may prove receipt or presence but does not necessarily prove:
that the factual grounds were explained;
that the accused understood them;
or that sufficient information was supplied to consult a lawyer.
A person may know that police suspect them without knowing the specific factual basis of the arrest.
The distinction matters because the accused must be able to challenge:
mistaken facts;
absence of legal ingredients;
lack of necessity;
and entitlement to bail.
The constitutional safeguard would become meaningless if police could satisfy it by merely reading:
the section numbers;
the FIR number;
or a generic statement that the person was arrested “in connection with the case.”
The Court clarified that written communication is the safest and normally required method because it:
prevents later dispute;
enables legal consultation;
and permits judicial verification.
The Magistrate must not presume compliance from the police file.
Before authorising detention, the Magistrate should determine whether the arrested person actually received and understood the grounds.
In Vihaan Kumar’s case, the material did not satisfactorily prove meaningful communication.
The constitutional defect therefore continued into the remand.

The Supreme Court held that the arrest was illegal for non-compliance with Article 22(1).
It reiterated that the duty to communicate grounds is universal and not confined to PMLA or UAPA cases.
The judgment places the burden upon the State to prove real and timely communication and confirms that remand cannot cure an unlawful arrest.