Vihaan Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Vihaan Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging his arrest on June 10, 2024, and the subsequent remand order dated June 11, 2024. He alleged illegal detention beyond 24 hours, claiming he was arrested at 10:30 AM and produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM, totaling over 28 hours of custody. The State contended that the petitioner was arrested at 6:00 PM on June 10, 2024, and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding transportation time. The complaint against the petitioner involved allegations of fraud, inducement, and misappropriation of funds totaling Rs. 12,15,00,000/- related to GST payments, stemming from a complaint filed on September 22, 2022. The petitioner also sought the preservation of CCTV footage from his office premises.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's arrest was not in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The State's counsel clarified that the petitioner was arrested at 6:00 PM on June 10, 2024, and produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM. Even accounting for transportation time, the period did not exceed 24 hours. The Court found no merit in the contention that the arrest was illegal detention beyond 24 hours. Regarding the grounds of arrest, the Court noted that para 12 of the State's reply explicitly stated the petitioner was informed of his arrest and the arrest memo was prepared. The Court found no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner was informed about the grounds of arrest, thus not violating Article 22(1). Consequently, the allegations of non-supply of arrest grounds were deemed bald. On the prayer for preservation of CCTV footage, the Court observed that the petition did not provide sufficient reasons for such a direction. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to apply to the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for preservation, and the concerned DySP was directed to look into the matter. The petition was dismissed with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's arrest on June 10, 2024, and subsequent production before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024, violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India by exceeding the 24-hour limit for production after arrest? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that his arrest occurred at 10:30 AM and he was produced after more than 24 hours, making the detention illegal. He relied on the principle that CCTV footage would corroborate his claim of early arrest. - State's argument: The State contended that the petitioner was arrested at 6:00 PM on June 10, 2024, and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, with transportation time excluded. They cited para 11 of their reply stating the arrest time and para 12 detailing the interrogation process leading to the arrest. 2. Whether the petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and pronouncements of the Supreme Court? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the grounds of arrest were not handed over to him, citing Supreme Court judgments in *Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India*, *Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, *Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate Enforcement*, and *V. Senthil Balaji vs. State*, as well as a High Court judgment in *Pranav Gupta v. Union of India*. - State's argument: The State asserted that the petitioner was informed of his arrest and the grounds thereof, as evidenced by the arrest memo and the fact that his wife was informed. They claimed the allegations of non-supply of arrest grounds were bald. 3. Whether the Court should direct the preservation of CCTV footage from the petitioner's office premises? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought the preservation of CCTV footage to corroborate his claim regarding the time of arrest and the circumstances surrounding it. - State's argument: The State mentioned that CCTV footage was available and attached screenshots as Annexure R-1.