Grossest Violation Of Article 21: Supreme Court Pulls Up State of Haryana For Handcuffing & Chaining An Accused To Bed In ICU

“What is your explanation for this? There is the grossest violation of Article 21. Affidavit records that he was handcuffed while he was admitted to the ICU. How do you justify this?”, the Court asked Haryana's Additional Advocate General (AAG), Deepak Thukral.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing an SLP filed by the accused Vihaan Kumar against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting the challenge to his arrest.

“The State owes an explanation of this conduct of handcuffing the petitioner while he was admitted in MICU of PGIMS Rohtak and the conduct of chaining him to the bed”, the Court observed in the order.

The petitioner claimed before the Supreme Court that he had been handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed when was admitted to the ICU. The court on October 4, 2024 directed the Medical Superintendent of the hospital to file an affidavit on this aspect.

The bench reviewed the affidavit filed by the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak, dated October 19, 2024. The affidavit admitted that the accused had been handcuffed during his time in the ICU.

Justice Oka stated that this was “the grossest violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.” The Court questioned the AAG about how such actions could be justified and demanded to know which officer was responsible for this.

Haryana's Additional Advocate General (AAG), Deepak Thukral, claimed that the accused's handcuffs had been removed when he needed to urinate and that the handcuffs were only used for a short period. He said he would take instructions regarding who was the concerned officer present in the hospital.

The Counsel for the petitioner claimed that the accused had been chained to the bed throughout the entire night.

Justice Oka remarked if the accused had been chained to the bed, it was not an inadvertent act and questioned why the accused would need to be chained to the bed.

He further asked why the hospital affidavit did not mention the chaining of the accused to the bed, especially as during the hearing, the Counsel for the Hospital admitted that the accused was chained to bed.

“If he was chained to the bed it is not inadvertent. We understand he was handcuffed; he was put into the bed when police officer went to change his clothes. But why would he be chained to the bed? Why would the hospital protect the police on this?”, Justice Oka said.

The Court also questioned the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused, noting that the accused had been in custody since 1:15 PM on the day of his arrest, but had been shown as arrested later.

Justice Oka questioned whether the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) had issued any notice or summons prior to the accused being taken in a police vehicle from his office. “This we will not tolerate coupled with the fact that he was chained to hospital bed. Prima facie case of illegal arrest”, he remarked.

The Court in its order expressed surprise on the fact that despite the order dated October 4, 2024 specifically asking the Medical Superintendent to state whether the accused was chained to the bed, the affidavit had remained silent on this issue.

The Court directed the Medical Superintendent to file an additional affidavit on this matter. Further, the court ordered the State of Haryana to provide an explanation for the conduct of handcuffing and chaining the accused while he was admitted to the ICU.

The Court also directed that the accused be examined by a medical board at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi, with a report on his current health condition to be submitted. The court set the next hearing for Friday, with the affidavits and the medical board's report to be filed by Thursday.

Background

The petitioner claimed that on June 10, 2024, he was taken into custody from his office in Gurugram. The petitioner has challenged the legality of his arrest and subsequent remand, claiming that he was held in custody for over 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the argument that the accused's arrest violated Article 22 of the Constitution. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court.

Case no. – SLP(Crl.) No. 13320/2024

Case Title – Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.  

Click Here To Read/Download Order