In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday held that it is the fundamental right of every person arrested to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible [Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana]..Failure by the investigating officer to do the same will amount to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution thereby, rendering the arrest invalid."The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated," the Court's February 7 ruling said.Such violation will entitle the accused to bail despite any statutory restrictions, the Court underscored."When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. Statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.".It is the fundamental right of every person arrested to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.Supreme Court.Pertinently, the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotishwar Singh added that when an arrested person is produced before a judicial magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made.If there is non-compliance with Article 22(1), the arrest would be illegal and the person cannot be remanded, the Court ruled.However, even if such arrest is illegal, it will not vitiate the investigation, chargesheet and trial, the Bench clarified.At the same time, filing of a chargesheet will not validate a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Court added, nor would a trial court's order of cognisance (judicial notice of a case) in such a scenario. "Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22," said the apex court..Statutory restrictions do not affect power to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.Supreme Court.The Bench laid down the following to safeguard the rights under Article 22 in the lead opinion authored by Justice Oka:.- The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); - Information on the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively, in the language which he understands; - When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/ Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); - Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated;- Non-compliance with the above will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);- When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made;- When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established..In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Singh added that the grounds of arrest must be given not only to the accused, but to his friends, relatives or a person nominated by the arrested person as well.This requirement is laid down in Section 50A of the CrPC (obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to a nominated person), he observed. This is to make the mandate under Article 22 (1) meaningful, so that the persons so informed of the grounds for arrest can take legal steps to challenge the arrest and secure the arrestee's liberty. Failure to do so may render the arrest illegal, he added. .Grounds of arrest must be supplied to accused immediately upon arrest: Delhi High Court.In the lead opinion, the Court also emphasised that police officers cannot make "casual" arrests under Section 41(arrests made without warrant) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, which has now been replaced by Section 35 of the BNSS). The Court noted that this provision lays down that the police can much such an arrest only when there is "credible information." The Court emphasised that this requirement is compulsory."A police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged. He can arrest provided twin conditions in clause (ba) are satisfied. The emphasis is on 'credible information.' He cannot arrest a person under clause (ba) unless credible information is received," the Court said. .The Court passed the ruling while granting relief to a man arrested on accusations that he was involved in cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery. The accused alleged that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest or produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, as required by law. He was also kept handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while in police custody.After the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to declare this arrest illegal, the accused approached the Supreme Court for relief. The State defended its actions by submitting that the information regarding his arrest was recorded in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary, which was sufficient to comply with the law on arrests. The top court disagreed, holding that the treatment given to the accused by the police was shocking. "He was taken to a hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to the hospital bed. This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21," the Court said. .The top court also criticised the Punjab and Haryana High Court for viewing the accused man's allegations about the failure to supply grounds of arrest as a "bald allegation." This was completely uncalled for, the top court said. "All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the other," the judgment said. The Court proceeded to declare the accused man's arrest illegal and ordered that he be released from jail. The Court clarified that the criminal trial against him will continue. The State of Haryana was also ordered to issue guidelines or departmental instructions to ensure that no arrested person is handcuffed to hospital beds like the accused was. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal assisted by Advocates Jasmine Damkewala and Archit Singh from Circle of Counsels appeared for the accused man whereas Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the complainant..[Read Judgment]
