This judgment considers whether the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was vitiated by non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution — namely, that an arrested person must be informed, “as soon as may be,” of the grounds for arrest — and related statutory obligations under Section 50 CrPC (and correlative Section 47 BNSS). The Court reiterates settled doctrine that the communication must be meaningful: sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be effectively imparted in a language the arrestee understands; mere notice of arrest or informing relatives does not satisfy the mandate. The bench holds the burden to prove compliance lies squarely on the arresting agency and that contemporaneous written record (or delivery of written grounds to the arrestee) is the safest and preferred method. Where Article 22(1) is breached the arrest is rendered illegal and any remand orders flowing from that arrest are vitiated, though investigation and trial may proceed on merits. The Court applied these principles to the facts — finding no proof that grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant, noting that the police relied on after-the-fact diary entries and on informing the appellant’s wife — and accordingly allowed the appeal, directed immediate release subject to trial attendance conditions, and issued directions to the State regarding handcuffing in hospital and strict compliance with Article 22 safeguards.