New Delhi, September 21, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has held that an accused released after an illegal arrest in violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 22 cannot be re-arrested at the discretion of the same investigating authority, ruling that any subsequent custody must have prior judicial approval.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment while hearing an appeal filed by Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had declined to restrain the investigating agency from seeking his re-arrest in a case registered under the POCSO Act.
The Supreme Court held that when an accused is released because the investigating agency violated Article 22(1), which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the agency must first furnish the grounds of arrest in writing and then approach the concerned Magistrate if it seeks custody again.
The application seeking re-arrest must set out the reasons and necessity for custody and explain why the grounds of arrest were not supplied at the initial stage. The Bench said such an application must also carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority to rule out the possibility of foul play or collusion.
The concerned Judicial Magistrate should consider the application expeditiously, preferably within a week, while following the principles of natural justice.
The Court made it clear that the power to re-arrest cannot remain with the same authority that had violated the constitutional safeguard. Any fresh custody must have “judicial imprimatur”, the Bench said.
The Magistrate may permit re-arrest only after being satisfied that the grounds of arrest could not initially be furnished for bona fide reasons and that taking the accused into custody is necessary.
The Court also directed that once an application seeking custody is submitted for endorsement, the superior authority must transfer the investigation to another officer and order a departmental inquiry into the lapse. If the inquiry finds the police officers responsible for the violation, departmental action must follow, including an adverse entry in their service records.
The judgment also addressed violations of Article 22(2), which requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time required for the journey.
The Bench held that the same procedure applicable to re-arrest following a violation of Article 22(1) must also be followed when Article 22(2) has been breached and the investigating agency continues to seek custody after the accused’s release.
The Court further observed that, depending on the facts and circumstances, a High Court may direct payment of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of Article 22(2), without preventing the accused from pursuing remedies available under private civil law.
Reiterating its earlier ruling, the Supreme Court said the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and in a language understood by the accused. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations against the appellant.
It directed that copies of the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of all states and Union Territories, Registrars General of the High Courts and Directors of State Judicial Academies.
FOLLOW NOW
