Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested on 10 June 2024 in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC. He challenged his arrest before the Supreme Court, primarily on the ground that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC. The appellant claimed he was arrested at 10:30 a.m. and produced before a Magistrate at 3:30 p.m. the next day, also violating Article 22(2). The State contended that the arrest was at 6:00 p.m. and that grounds were communicated orally, as recorded in the case diary. The Supreme Court examined the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary. It found that the arrest memo did not mention communication of grounds, the remand report only stated that the appellant was informed of the grounds without specifying what was communicated, and the case diary entry was not contemporaneous. The Court held that the police failed to discharge the burden of proving that grounds were communicated. Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court declared the arrest illegal and directed the appellant's release. The Court also noted the handcuffing of the appellant in hospital as a separate violation but did not base its decision on that.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest - Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellant was arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC. The police failed to produce any contemporaneous record showing communication of grounds. The arrest was declared illegal and the appellant was directed to be released. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Arrest - Communication of Grounds - Section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The requirement under Section 50 CrPC to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory. The police must maintain a contemporaneous record of such communication. In the absence of such record, the arrest is rendered illegal. (Paras 7-15) C) Evidence - Contemporaneous Record - Burden of Proof - The burden to prove that grounds of arrest were communicated lies on the police. The case diary entry stating that grounds were informed, without details, is insufficient. The arrest memo and remand report did not mention communication of grounds. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arrest of the appellant was illegal due to violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for failure to inform him of the grounds of arrest.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, declared the arrest of the appellant illegal, and directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
- Section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Right to be informed of grounds of arrest
- Illegal arrest
- Contemporaneous record
- Burden of proof on police
