The Supreme Court has clarified that merely informing the relatives of an arrested person about the arrest does not fulfill the legal and constitutional obligation to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee.
“A communication of the grounds of arrest to the relative (wife) of the arrestee does not satisfy the mandate of Article 22(1),” the Court stated.
Rejecting the State’s contention, the Court held that recording the arrest details in the remand report, arrest memo, and case diary does not equate to furnishing the grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court observed that these documents only reflect the occurrence of an arrest but fail to provide reasons for it.
“Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report does not comply with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest,” the bench remarked.
The Court also distinguished between information regarding the arrest and the specific grounds for the arrest. It noted that an arrest memo typically contains details such as the name and address of the arrested person, particulars of the FIR, sections applied, and the officer’s name, but does not include the reasons for the arrest. The Court categorically held that merely informing someone about an arrest does not amount to furnishing the grounds of arrest.
Furthermore, the State had relied on an entry in the case diary stating that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest. The Court dismissed this claim as an “afterthought,” pointing out that the argument had not been raised before the High Court or the Supreme Court in the State’s reply. The Court ruled that a vague police diary entry could not establish compliance with Article 22(1), especially in the absence of contemporaneous records.
Case Background
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh while hearing an appeal against the arrest of the appellant, Vihaan Kumar. The appellant contended that he was taken into custody without being informed of the grounds for his arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The State, however, argued that recording the arrest details in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary sufficed to meet the constitutional requirement.
Dissatisfied with the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s refusal to declare the arrest illegal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court declared the arrest illegal. The judgment, authored by Justice Oka, reaffirmed that non-compliance with Article 22(1) renders an arrest unlawful.
Key Takeaway from Judgment
The Court further emphasized that an arrest made without informing the person of its reasons is illegal. It held that when Article 22(1) is violated, courts must grant bail despite statutory restrictions.
Case Title: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024.
