The Supreme Court has held that when an accused is released because his arrest violated the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) or Article 22(2), the investigating agency cannot re-arrest him on its own and must obtain judicial approval after following prescribed safeguards. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which had held that the investigating agency could seek re-arrest of the accused so long as the subsequent arrest complied with law.
The Court ruled that where an accused has been released for violation of Article 22(1), any request for his re-arrest must be placed before the concerned Magistrate. The investigating agency must explain why custody is necessary, why the grounds of arrest were not supplied initially, and must first furnish those grounds to the accused. The application must also carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.
The Court further held that the same procedure would apply where Article 22(2), which requires production of an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours excluding journey time, has been violated.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered on May 13, 2026 at Mataur Police Station in SAS Nagar, Punjab, under Sections 64, 65(1) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The appellant, Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol, was arrested at around 7:54 am on May 17, 2026 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate on May 18 around noon.
The Magistrate found that the appellant had not been supplied written grounds of arrest. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Magistrate held that the investigating agency had failed to comply with the constitutional requirement and directed his immediate release.
The Magistrate, however, clarified that the investigating agency could move an application seeking remand or custody after supplying the grounds of arrest in writing and explaining the earlier failure.
A fresh application seeking custody was subsequently filed. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed it on May 22, 2026, noting, among other things, that the grounds of arrest had still not been supplied and that custody or remand could not be granted in the absence of an arrest.
The appellant then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking, among other reliefs, a restraint against his re-arrest, custody or issuance of an arrest warrant.
The High Court dismissed his petition on May 29, holding that although the original arrest had been declared illegal, the investigating agency was not barred from seeking his re-arrest if the subsequent arrest was carried out in accordance with law. It also said that the appellant could take appropriate legal action against the police officers for detention beyond 24 hours.
Appellant Cited Breach of Both Clauses of Article 22
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for the appellant, argued that there had been two constitutional violations: failure to furnish the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1), and failure to produce the appellant before a Magistrate within 24 hours as required by Article 22(2).
It was argued that a person released because of such constitutional violations could not automatically be re-arrested by the same police authority responsible for the illegality.
The appellant relied, among other decisions, on Khatri v. State of Bihar, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah.
State Opposed Blanket Immunity From Arrest
Punjab Additional Advocate General Rajat Bhardwaj argued that violation of procedural safeguards could not confer permanent immunity from arrest.
The State submitted that release from an illegal arrest did not erase the alleged offence or terminate the investigation. It argued that a subsequent lawful arrest remained permissible if custody was required for investigation.
The State also informed the Court that departmental action had been initiated against the officers responsible for the initial lapse. Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurtej Singh had been suspended, while Inspector Rupinder Singh had been removed as Station House Officer and transferred to the Police Lines. Investigation of the FIR was thereafter assigned to Inspector Amandeep Singh.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, appearing for the de facto complainant, also opposed any blanket prohibition on re-arrest.
Article 22 Safeguards Are Not Mere Procedural Formalities
Examining Article 22(1), the Supreme Court reiterated that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental constitutional safeguard linked to personal liberty.
Referring to Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court noted that the grounds of arrest must be meaningfully communicated and, under the principles laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah, furnished in writing in a language understood by the arrestee.
Rejecting the proposition that defects in furnishing the grounds of arrest could be treated merely as procedural lapses requiring proof of prejudice, the Court observed:
“When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise.”
It added:
“The safeguards adumbrated in Article 22(1) are not mere procedural safeguards; these are fundamental principles which are required to be followed in the event liberty of a person is sought to be curtailed.”
The Court clarified that an accused released because of violation of Article 22(1) is not being enlarged on bail.
“When an accused is released for violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22 (1), he is not enlarged on bail. He is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention.”
Re-Arrest Must Have Judicial Imprimatur
The Court strengthened the safeguards laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah for cases where the investigating agency seeks custody after an accused has been released for failure to supply the grounds of arrest.
It held that the agency must first furnish the grounds of arrest and then approach the concerned Magistrate with an application explaining the reasons and necessity for re-arrest. The application must also explain why the grounds were not supplied in the first instance and must bear the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.
The Court said:
“Once there is a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the power to re-arrest the accused must not be left to the discretion of the very same authority who had violated the said provision of the Constitution. It must have the judicial imprimatur.”
A Magistrate may permit re-arrest only after being satisfied that there were bona fide reasons for the initial failure to furnish the grounds of arrest, that those grounds were subsequently supplied, and that re-arrest is necessary.
The Court further directed that when such an application is placed before the superior authority for endorsement, the investigation must be transferred to another officer and a departmental enquiry initiated over the constitutional lapse. An adverse finding in such enquiry would entail departmental action and an entry in the service book of the officer concerned.
Same Safeguards Apply to Violation of 24-Hour Rule
Turning to Article 22(2), the Court reiterated that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey.
Referring to Khatri, Manoj and Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, the Court said the constitutional requirement must be strictly observed and that detention beyond the permissible period without the authority of a Magistrate becomes unlawful.
The Court observed:
“We have come a long way since then but this constitutional mandate continues to remain firm and unshaken, as if engraved in stone.”
It distinguished the decisions in Sanjay Dutt v. State and Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, saying those cases concerned default bail arising from failure to file a chargesheet within the statutory period, while the present case involved infringement of fundamental rights under both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 at the threshold of arrest.
The Court held that the procedure prescribed for re-arrest after breach of Article 22(1) must also be followed where an accused has been released because of a breach of Article 22(2).
It also said 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 under private civil law.
Constitutional Procedure Must Be Rigorously Followed
The Supreme Court stressed that constitutional safeguards do not depend on the seriousness of the accusation.
“Violation of the Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly. It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence, encompassing within its sweep all offences.”
Referring to Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate, Kamrup, the Court reiterated that the gravity of an alleged offence cannot justify deprivation of personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and law.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s May 29, 2026 order as well as the impugned observations made by the Magistrate on May 18, 2026.
The Court held that if the authorities consider custodial interrogation of the appellant necessary, they must follow the mandate laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah along with the additional safeguards prescribed in the present judgment for violations of Articles 22(1) and 22(2).
The bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations against the appellant.
It further directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Directors General of Police of States and Union Territories, as well as the Registrar Generals of all High Courts and Directors of State Judicial Academies.
Case Title: Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11103 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: September 21, 2026
