Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Anr.

Case Name: Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 162

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: February 7, 2025

Bench Composition: Justice Abhay S. Oka (author) and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (concurring opinion)

Statement of Facts

Vihaan Kumar the appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered on March 25, 2023, at DLF Police Station, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 409[1], 420[2], 467[3], 468[4], and 471[5] read with Section 120-B[6] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.

According to the appellant’s version, he was arrested on June 10, 2024, at approximately 10:30 A.M. from the office premises located on the 3^rd-5^th floor of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram. He was subsequently taken to DLF Police Station. The appellant contended that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurugram on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 P.M., which exceeded the mandatory 24-hour period stipulated under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57[7] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (CrPC).

 The States’s version differed materially- it claimed that the appellant was arrested at 6:00 P.M. on June 10, 2024, thereby asserting compliance with the constitutional requirement of producing the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours. Crucially, neither the remand report nor the Magistrate’s order dated June 11, 2024, mentioned the precise time of arrest, leading to a factual dispute.

Throughout the Supreme Court proceedings, a particularly serious factual aspect surfaced. The appellant was admitted to PGIMS, Rohtak, following his arrest. According to photos the appellant’s attorney provided, he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed during his hospital admission. In an affidavit dated October 21, 2024, the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS acknowledged that the appellant was in fact handcuffed and chained while in the hospital after receiving a notice from the Supreme Court on October 4, 2024. In response to this admission, Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Abhimanyu of EOW I and II, Gurugram, filed and affidavit on October 24, 2024, stating that the officials who escorted the appellant to PGIMS had been suspended and that a departmental inquiry had been ordered against them on October 23, 2024.

The FIR was registered at the instance of the second respondent, and a chargesheet was eventually filed against the appellant.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging his arrest. The writ petition specifically alleged that:

1. The appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, thereby violating Article 22(1)[8] of the Constitution and Section 50[9] of the CrPC.
2. He was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, violating Article 22(2)[10] of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC.
3. He was subjected to inhuman treatment by being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on August 30, 2024, holding no basis to doubt the petitioner’s awareness of arrest grounds, deeming the allegation “bald”. It noted the appellant’s production before the Judicial Magistrate, who authorized seven days’ police custody. Aggrieved. The appellant filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13320/2024 in the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court granted leave, converting it into a Criminal Appeal for substantive adjudication.

Issues

The principal issues raised before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the appellant’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated due to the failure to inform him of the grounds for his arrest?
2. Whether such violation rendered the arrest illegal and vitiated subsequent remand orders?
3. Whether the appellant was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, as mandated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC?
4. What is the legal consequence of non-compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1)?
5. Whether the inhuman treatment meted out to the appellant by handcuffing and chaining him to a hospital bed constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution?

Judgement

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgement of the Punjab and Hryana High Court dated August 30, 2024.

The Court held that:

1. The arrest of the appellant on June 10, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023 stands vitiated due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. The appellant shall be forthwith released and set at liberty.
3. The finding that the arrest is vitiated will not affect the merits of the chargesheet or the pending trial.
4. The appellant must regularly attend the trial court and cooperate for early disposal of the trial. He must furnish a bond under Section 91[11] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) within two weeks.
5. The State of Haryana must issue guidelines to the police to ensure:
6. that handcuffing and chaining accused persons to hospital beds is never repeated, and
7. that constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed.

Holding

The Supreme Court held as follows:

1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). Such information must be provided in a manner that imparts sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds, communicated effectively in the language the arrestee understands.
2. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest. It amounts to a violation not only of Article 22(1) but also of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such violation renders the arrest illegal, and further remand orders are also vitiated. However, it does not vitiate the investigation, chargesheet or trial.
3. When violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused, even if statutory restrictions on bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the court’s power to grant bail when violation of Articles 21 and 22 is established.
4. The burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) lies on the investigating agency. When an arrested person alleges non-compliance, the burden shifts to the arresting officer or the State to prove effective compliance.
5. Informing the arrestee’s wife or relatives about the arrest does not constitute compliance with Article 22(1) unless the grounds of arrest are also communicated to the arrestee himself.
6. Inclusion of grounds of arrest in the remand report (which is not served on the arrestee) does not constitute compliance with the constitutional mandate.
7. It is the duty of the Magistrate, when an arrested person is produced for remand, to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. Courts have an obligation to uphold fundamental rights.

Rule of Law / Legal Principle applied  

The Supreme Court articulated and reinforced several crucial constitutional and legal principles:

Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1)

Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides:

“No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

The Court emphasized that informing the arrestee of the grounds for arrest is not a procedural formality but a fundamental right. The mode of conveying information must be meaningful and serve the intended purpose. The information must impart sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, communicated effectively and fully to the arrestee in a language he understands.

Interplay Between Articles 21 and 22(1)

The Court held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) also violates Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The procedure established by law under Article 21 includes compliance with Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without being informed of the grounds, it amounts to deprivation of liberty not in accordance with the procedure established by law, thereby violating Article 21.

Interpretation Consistent with Preventive Detention (Article 22(5)[12])

Relying on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, the Court noted that the language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) regarding communication of grounds is identical. Therefore, the interpretation of Article 22(5) by the Constitution Bench in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra[13] (1962 Supp 2 SCR 918) applies equally to Article 22(1). In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India[14] (1981) 2 SCC 427, the Court held that “communicate” is a strong word, it means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts must be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language he understands.

Written Communication- Ideal Practice

While the Court acknowledged that there is no constitutional requirement to communicate the grounds in writing, it endorsed the guidance provided in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024)[15] 7 SCC 576, paragraphs 42-43, which suggested that furnishing written grounds of arrest is the ideal and proper course. The Court observed:

• Oral communication can lead to disputes (“word of the arrested person against the word of the officer”).
• Written grounds enable the arrested person to effectively seek legal counsel and present a bail application.
• Voluminous grounds, if merely read out, cannot be remembered by a person in a distressed state after arrest.

Burden of Proof

When an arrested person alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proving compliance lies entirely on the investigating officer or the arresting agency. The arrestee discharges his burden simply by alleging non-communication; thereafter, it is for the State to satisfy the court that effective compliance was made.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Court unequivocally held:

• Non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest.
• Further orders of remand are also vitiated.
• The accused must be forthwith released.
• Filing of chargesheet and order of cognizance do not validate an unconstitutional arrest.
• However, the vitiated arrest does not affect the investigation, chargesheet, or trial on merits.
• Violation of Article 22(1) is a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions exist.

Duty of the Magistrate

The Court emphasized 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) and other mandatory safeguards has been made. All courts have an obligation to uphold fundamental rights. If compliance is not made, the arrest is illegal, and remand cannot be granted.

Section 50[16] of CrPC (Section 47[17] of BNSS)

The Court clarified that Section 50 of CrPC does not dilute the requirement of Article 22(1). Section 50 mandates communication of full particulars of the offence for which the person is arrested or other grounds for arrest. The “other grounds for such arrest” referred to in Section 50(1)[18] are distinct from the grounds of arrest referred to in Article 22(1). Section 50 is in addition to Article 22(1), not an alternative.

If Section 50 were interpreted as diluting Article 22(1), it would attract the vice of unconstitutionality.

Arrest Memo vs. Grounds of Arrest

The Court clarified that the arrest memo is not equivalent to the grounds of arrest. An arrest memo typically contains:

• Name of the arrested person
• Permanent and present address
• Particulars of FIR and sections applied
• Place, date, and time of arrest
• Name of the arresting officer
• Name, address, and phone number of the person informed about the arrest

This information is distinct from the grounds of arrest, which must explain the basis and reasons for the arrest.

Communication to Relatives Not Sufficient

The Court rejected the contention that informing the wife or relatives about the arrest satisfies Article 22(1). Communication of grounds of arrest to the arrestee’s wife or relatives does not constitute compliance with the constitutional mandate, which requires communication to the arrestee himself.

Remand Report Not a Substitute

The Court held that mentioning grounds of arrest in the remand report (which is not served on the arrestee) does not constitute compliance with Article 22(1). The remand report is submitted to the Magistrate for seeking custody and is not shared with the accused, as it contains details of the investigation that cannot be divulged until the final report is filed.

Reasoning

1. Factual Findings on Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court meticulously analysed the pleadings and affidavits filed before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Appellant’s Specific Pleading:  In Grounds A, B and E of the writ petition filed before the High Court, the appellant explicitly and repeatedly contended that he was not informed of the grounds or reasons for his arrest, thereby violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the CrPC.

State’s Response: The status report/reply filed by Shri Abhimanyu, Assistant Commissioner of Police, before the High Court did not deny the appellant’s allegation that the grounds of arrest were not communicated. It merely mentioned that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest.

In the reply to the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the State again asserted that the grounds of arrest were explained to the appellant’s wife, both over the phone and when she came to meet him. Paragraph 11 of the affidavit stated:

“When informing Petitioner’s wife about Petitioner’s arrest, the grounds of arrest were also explained to her in detail as per the provisions of Section 50A[19] of CrPC.”

The Court noted that this position clearly demonstrates that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the appellant himself but only to his wife. Moreover, this contention was an afterthought, as it was not raised in the reply before the High Court.

Reliance on Case Diary: The State sought to rely on an entry in the case diary dated June 10, 2024, at 6:10 p.m., which recorded that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. The Court rejected this reliance for the following reasons:

• This was not pleaded before the High Court or in the original reply before the Supreme Court; it was an afterthought.
• The entry was vague and did not specify what the grounds of arrest were.
• There was no contemporaneous document recording the grounds of arrest.
• The burden of proving compliance lies on the investigating agency, and a mere diary entry, without substantiation, is insufficient.

Remand Report Argument: The State contended that the grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. The Court dismissed this contention:

• The remand report is submitted to the Magistrate and not served on the arrestee.
• Police cannot divulge investigation details to the accused until the final report is filed.
• Mentioning grounds in the remand report is not compliance with the constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee.

2. Legal Analysis on Article 22(1)

The Court engaged in a detailed exposition of the constitutional mandate:

Purpose of Article 22(1): The Court explained that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest serves multiple critical purposes:

• Enables the arrestee to understand why his liberty is being curtailed, which is fundamental to the rule of law.
• Allows the arrestee to exercise his right to consult a lawyer and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice (also guaranteed under Article 22(1)).
• Facilitates the arrestee’s ability to seek bail, especially under statutory provisions with twin conditions (as in PMLA), where the arrestee must satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty.
• Acts as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest by ensuring that grounds for arrest exist and are articulable.

Meaningful Communication: Citing Pankaj Bansal (paragraphs 38, 42, 43), the Court emphasized that the mode of conveying information must be meaningful. The information must:

• Impart sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds.
• Be communicated effectively and fully.
• Be in a language the arrestee understands.
• Serve the constitutional objective of enabling the arrestee to seek legal remedies.

The Court observed that a person who has just been arrested is unlikely to be in a calm frame of mind and may be incapable of remembering voluminous grounds read out orally. Therefore, written communication is strongly recommended, though not constitutionally mandated.

Burden of Proof: The Court held that once the arrestee alleges non-communication, the entire burden shifts to the arresting agency to prove effective compliance. This is because:

• The arrestee’s fundamental right is at stake.
• The State exercises coercive power through arrest.
• Courts must zealously guard fundamental rights.

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Court firmly held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest. The reasoning was:

Violation of Article 21: Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The “procedure established by law” includes Article 22(1). Therefore, an arrest without informing the grounds violates Article 21.

Fundamental Right Cannot Be Diluted: The Court rejected the argument that filing of a chargesheet and order of cognizance would validate an unconstitutional arrest, stating:

“Accepting such arguments… will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.”

Once an arrest is held unconstitutional, continued custody based on remand orders is also vitiated. However, the Court clarified that this does not affect the investigation, chargesheet, or trial on merits it only affects the legality of custody.

Duty to Release: The Court held that when violation of Article 22(1) is established, the court must forthwith order release, even if statutory restrictions on bail exist (such as twin conditions under PMLA or serious offences). The violation of constitutional rights overrides statutory bail restrictions.

4. Critique of High Court’s Approach

The Supreme Court was critical of the High Court’s reasoning. The High Court had:

• Equated information about the arrest with grounds of arrest, which are distinct concepts.
• Characterized the appellant’s allegation as “bald” without examining the State’s failure to specifically deny the allegation.
• Failed to discharge its constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court held:

“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 Court observed that the High Court’s approach was “completely erroneous” and failed to recognize that the burden of proof lies on the State once non-compliance is alleged.

5. Inhuman Treatment: Article 21 Violation

The Court expressed shock at the treatment meted out to the appellant; being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The Court held:

“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 directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines to ensure that such illegalities are never committed and that constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed.

6. Judicial Duty of Magistrates

The Court emphasized that when an arrested person is produced for remand, the Magistrate must ascertain compliance with Article 22(1). If compliance has not been made, the arrest is illegal, and the person cannot be remanded. This is part of the Magistrate’s duty to uphold fundamental rights.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered a concurring opinion, agreeing entirely with Justice Abhay S. Oka’s analysis and conclusions. However, Justice Singh added supplementary observations emphasizing the importance of Section 50A of the CrPC (now Section 47A[20] of the BNSS).

Key Points from the Concurring Opinion:

1. Purpose of Section 50A: Justice Singh highlighted that Section 50A mandates that the person making an arrest must inform the friends, relatives, or persons nominated by the arrested person about the arrest. This provision ensures that:

• Immediate and prompt action can be taken to secure the release of the arrested person.
• Since the detained person may not have immediate access to legal processes, relatives and friends can engage lawyers and brief them to secure bail at the earliest.

2. Communicating Grounds to Relatives: While Section 50A requires informing relatives about the arrest, Justice Singh clarified that for the mandate of Article 22(1) to be meaningful and effective, the grounds of arrest must also be communicated in writing not only to the arrested person but also to the friends, relatives, or nominated persons. This enables them to understand the situation and take effective legal action.
3. Failure Renders Arrest Illegal: Justice Singh concluded that failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing to both the arrested person and his relatives/friends may render the arrest illegal, as it defeats the purpose of actualizing the fundamental right to liberty and life guaranteed under Article 21.

Additional Comments/Personal Impressions

This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Article 22(1) and represents a significant development in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Several aspects merit commentary:

1. Strengthening Procedural Safeguards: The judgment unequivocally reinforces that constitutional rights are not mere procedural technicalities but substantive protections that must be zealously guarded. By holding that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and mandates immediate release, the Court has sent a strong message to law enforcement agencies about the inviolability of fundamental rights.
2. Burden of Proof: The Court’s emphasis that the burden of proving compliance lies on the State is particularly significant. This shifts the evidentiary burden entirely to the arresting agency and prevents situations where the arrestee’s word is pitted against the officer’s claim. This approach aligns with the principle that when the State exercises coercive power (arrest), it must demonstrate strict adherence to constitutional norms.
3. Practical Guidance for Written Communication: While acknowledging that Article 22(1) does not mandate written communication, the Court’s endorsement of the guidance in Pankaj Bansal, that written grounds should be furnished as a matter of best practice, provides clear operational guidance to police forces nationwide. This reduces disputes, ensures transparency, and enables arrestees to effectively defend themselves.
4. Judicial Accountability: The Court’s critique of the High Court’s approach is noteworthy. By characterizing the High Court’s reasoning as “completely erroneous” and emphasizing that courts have a duty to protect fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has underscored judicial accountability in safeguarding constitutional liberties. This serves as a reminder to all courts that allegations of constitutional violations must be examined with utmost seriousness.
5. Balancing Investigation and Rights: The Court struck a careful balance by holding that while a vitiated arrest requires immediate release, it does not affect the investigation, chargesheet, or trial. This ensures that genuine investigations are not derailed while simultaneously protecting individual liberty. The accused must furnish a bond and cooperate with the trial, ensuring that justice is served on merits.
6. Dignity and Humane Treatment: The Court’s condemnation of the inhuman treatment (handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed) is a powerful assertion of human dignity as an integral component of Article 21. The directive to the State to issue guidelines reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring that such degrading treatment is never repeated.
7. Implications for PMLA and Special Statutes: While this case arose under the IPC, the principles articulated apply across the board, including to special statutes like the PMLA, NDPS Act, and UAPA. The Court’s reliance on Pankaj Bansal (a PMLA case) demonstrates that stringent compliance with Article 22(1) is required regardless of the nature of the offence. This is particularly significant in cases involving economic offences or national security, where arrest powers are often invoked.
8. Section 50A and Family Rights: Justice Singh’s concurring opinion highlighting Section 50A adds an important dimension. Informing relatives is not merely about notifying them of the arrest but empowering them to take effective legal action. This recognizes the familial support system as crucial to actualizing the right to liberty.
9. Future Directions: The judgment may necessitate legislative and executive action:

• Police Rules and Standing Orders may need amendments to mandate written communication of grounds of arrest.
• Training programs for police personnel on constitutional safeguards.
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for arrests to ensure compliance with Article 22(1).
• Magisterial vigilance during remand proceedings to verify compliance.

10. Critiques and Considerations: While the judgment is laudable, practical implementation may face challenges:

• In cases of immediate arrest at crime scenes, preparing written grounds may cause delays. However, the Court’s standard of “as soon as may be” allows reasonable time.
• The judgment does not prescribe the level of detail required in grounds of arrest. Overly generic grounds may be challenged, while excessively detailed grounds may compromise ongoing investigations. Courts will need to develop jurisprudence on this aspect.
• The directive to issue guidelines (paragraph 33(e)) is welcome, but effective monitoring mechanisms are needed to ensure compliance.

11. Alignment with International Standard: The judgment aligns with international human rights norms, including Article 9(2)[21] of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires that anyone arrested be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for arrest. India’s commitment to these standards is reflected in this robust constitutional interpretation.

Conclusion

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana is a landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding personal liberty under Article 22(1). It mandates that police communicate arrest grounds in writing to the accused without delay, with non-compliance rendering the arrest unlawful and requiring immediate release.

The Court clarified the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to demonstrate compliance, emphasizing Magistrates’ duty to verify this before remand. It provides clear guidelines for law enforcement: record reasons, furnish copies promptly, and avoid undue detention.

This judgment fortifies constitutional safeguards against arbitrary arrests, curbing executive overreach. Legal practitioners can now robustly challenge defective arrests; police must ensure strict procedural adherence; and judges must vigilantly protect rights.

As a barricade for fundamental freedoms, it exemplifies the Supreme Court’s role as sentinel against State excess in India’s constitutional democracy.

Reference(S):

[1] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 409, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 420, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[3] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 467, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[4] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 468, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[5] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 471, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[6] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 120-B, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[7] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 § 57, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

[8] INDIA CONST. art. 22 cl. 1

[9] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 § 50, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

[10] INDIA CONST. art. 22 cl. 2

[11] The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 § 91, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

[12] INDIA CONST. art. 22 cl. 5

[13] Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962) Supp 2 SCR 918

[14] Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427

[15] Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576

[16] The Code of Criminal procedure, 1974 § 50, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

[17] The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 § 47, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

[18] The Code of Criminal procedure, 1974 § 50(1), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

[19] The Code of Criminal procedure, 1974 § 50A, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

[20] The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 § 47A, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

[21] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 9(2), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.