Supreme Court Declares Arrest and Subsequent Custody Unconstitutional: “Failure to Inform Grounds of Arrest Violates Article 22(1); Handcuffing Accused in Hospital Violates Article 21”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of the appellant was unconstitutional due to the failure of the police to inform him of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court stated that non-compliance with this constitutional requirement not only invalidates the arrest but also renders all subsequent judicial remand orders void.

Furthermore, the Court found that handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed was inhumane and a violation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and dignity. The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant and directed the State of Haryana to issue new guidelines ensuring strict compliance with constitutional safeguards to prevent similar violations in the future.

Facts of the Case

1. Background of the Case:
   • The appellant was arrested on June 10, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered under Sections 409 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC.
   • The arrest took place at his office premises in Gurugram, Haryana. He was taken to DLF Police Station, Gurugram.
2. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights:
   • The appellant claimed that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, which violates Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the CrPC.
   • Additionally, he alleged that there was a breach of Article 22(2) because he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
3. Police Misconduct (Chaining in Hospital):
   • After his arrest, the appellant was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak.
   • Photographs showed that while in the hospital, he was handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed, leading the Supreme Court to take serious note of police misconduct.
   • The Medical Superintendent of PGIMS admitted in an affidavit that the appellant was chained to the bed, leading to the suspension of the responsible police officers and an internal inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram.

Issues Before the Court

1. Violation of Article 22(1):
   • Did the police fail to inform the appellant of the grounds of arrest, and does this render the arrest illegal?
2. Legality of Arrest and Subsequent Custody:
   • If an arrest is unconstitutional, does it also make subsequent judicial remand and custody illegal?
3. Compliance with Article 22(2):
   • Was the appellant produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest?
4. Constitutionality of Handcuffing and Chaining the Accused in Hospital:
   • Did chaining the appellant to a hospital bed violate Article 21 (Right to dignity)?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellant’s Claims)

1. Failure to Communicate Grounds of Arrest:
   • The appellant’s senior counsel argued that the police did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest, which is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
   • The appellant relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, which held that failure to communicate grounds of arrest renders an arrest illegal.
2. Judicial Remand Cannot Validate an Illegal Arrest:
   • Since the arrest itself was unconstitutional, any subsequent remand orders were void.
   • The appellant emphasized that even if a charge sheet has been filed, it does not validate an unconstitutional arrest.
3. Violation of Article 21 Due to Handcuffing and Chaining in Hospital:
   • The appellant’s counsel condemned the inhumane treatment of the appellant by police, calling it a grave violation of his dignity and fundamental rights.
   • The Supreme Court took serious note of this misconduct.
4. Immediate Release Sought:
   • The appellant argued that since his arrest was unconstitutional, he must be released immediately.

Respondent’s Arguments (State’s Defence)

1. Police Complied with Legal Requirements:
   • The State argued that the appellant’s wife was informed of the arrest and the grounds of arrest, fulfilling Section 50A of the CrPC.
   • The appellant disputed this, stating that informing his wife does not fulfill the constitutional mandate.
2. Case Diary Entry Showing Grounds of Arrest:
   • The State relied on a police diary entry recorded at 6:10 PM on June 10, 2024, stating that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest.
   • However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that no contemporaneous record proving compliance with Article 22(1) was produced.
3. Subsequent Remand and Charge Sheet Validated Custody:
   • The State argued that since the appellant was remanded by a magistrate and a charge sheet was filed, his continued custody was lawful.
   • The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an unconstitutional arrest cannot be validated by subsequent remand orders or the filing of a charge sheet.
4. Justification for Handcuffing:
   • The State attempted to justify handcuffing the appellant on security grounds but admitted that disciplinary action had been taken against responsible officers.

Court’s Analysis of the Law

1. Violation of Article 22(1) (Failure to Inform Grounds of Arrest)

• Article 22(1) mandates that an arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest “as soon as may be.”
• The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (2024) reaffirmed that failure to communicate grounds of arrest renders an arrest illegal.
• The Court rejected the State’s claim that informing the appellant’s wife was sufficient, holding that grounds of arrest must be communicated to the accused directly.

2. Burden of Proof on the Police

• When an accused claims that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, the burden is on the police to prove that they complied with Article 22(1).
• In this case, the police failed to produce a document proving compliance.

3. Judicial Remand Cannot Validate an Illegal Arrest

• The Court categorically rejected the argument that subsequent remand and charge sheet filing validate an unconstitutional arrest.

4. Violation of Article 21 (Inhumane Treatment by Police)

• Handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed was found to be a grave violation of his dignity under Article 21.
• The Court ordered disciplinary action against the responsible officers.

Final Court Orders

1. The appellant’s arrest is declared unconstitutional and illegal.
2. The appellant must be released immediately.
3. The State of Haryana must issue new guidelines ensuring strict compliance with constitutional safeguards.
4. The State must prevent illegal handcuffing and chaining of accused persons.
5. The case against the appellant will continue, but his arrest remains void.

Implications of the Judgment

• Police must strictly comply with Article 22(1).
• Failure to inform an accused of the grounds of arrest renders both the arrest and subsequent custody illegal.
• Handcuffing and chaining of accused persons in hospitals is unconstitutional.
• Judicial remand does not validate an illegal arrest.
• Sets a strong precedent against police misconduct.

This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights and protecting individuals from unlawful detention and inhumane treatment.

Also Read – Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict: “Extra-Judicial Confession Lacked Credibility, No Corroborative Forensic Evidence, and Contradictory Witness Testimonies Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”