The Supreme Court on Monday pronounced an important judgment clarifying the procedure for the re-arrest of an accused, after the earlier arrest was declared illegal for not furnishing the grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul Chandurkar laid down that to re-arrest a person, who was released for the breach of Article 22(1), the police must file an application before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and obtain the Magistrate's sanction. The said application can be filed only after furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused. Also, the application must be endorsed by the immediate superior of the police officer who carried out the first arrest.

The application should also contain the explanation for non-supply of grounds of arrest to that used at the first instance.

The bench also directed that departmental disciplinary action be initiated against the police officer who made the first arrest in violation of Article 22(1).

"Once there is a breach of Article 22(1),  the power of re-arrest should not be left to the discretion of the very same authority who violated the provision of the constitution. It must be judicially implemented," Justice Bhuyan pronounced.

The Court therefore directed that the Magistrate must decide the application expeditiously and the investigation must be handed over to another officer by the agency.

Re-arrest is permissible only if Magistrate is satisfied of bona-fide reasons.

"It is only when the magistrate is satisfied that for bona fide reasons, the grounds of arrest could not be furnished to the arrestee at the first instance, but furnished subsequent to his relief and on further satisfaction that the accused needs to be re-arrested, he may pass an order permitting the investigating agency to re-arrest. On the administrative side, the superior authority when presented with the application seeking his endorsement for custody of the accused who has been released for violation of Article 22(1), shall hand over the investigation of the case to another officer, further directing departmental inquiry for such a serious lapse. If the inquiry culminates in an adverse finding against the erring police officers, it would entail departmental action with entry in the service book of such officer," Justice Bhuyan pronounced.

The bench elaborated upon the principles laid down in the Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra (2025) judgment, and said that it was laying down further procedural safeguards regarding re-arrest to prevent abuse.

The Court clarified that Article 22(1) is not statute-specific, and applies to any arrest, even those under the special statutes.

Also, the accused need not show that he has suffered any prejudice because of the violation of this provision, since it is a fundamental right.

The Court further clarified that when a person is released after the quashing of arrest for breach of Article 22(1), it is not a release on bail.

Background

The petitioner Jaskaran Singh Deol, a Shiromani Akali Dal leader, was arrested by Punjab Police in connection with allegations of sexual assault of a minor.

Deol was arrested from his residence in Ludhiana on May 17, 2026. He was produced before the Magistrate at noon the following day, more than 24 hours after his arrest. He contended that he had not been furnished the grounds of arrest. The Magistrate consequently ordered his immediate release, holding that the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Subsequently, the investigating officer moved an application seeking his custody. The application was subsequently dismissed as not maintainable. Deol then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to restrain the Investigating Agency from re-arresting him.

The High Court, however, held that there was no fetter on the investigating officer's power to re-arrest Deol after his release on account of the violation of Article 22(1). It said that he could take legal action separately against the police officials responsible for keeping him in custody beyond 24 hours.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 22(1), Article 22(2), and Article 21 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 50, Section 57, and Section 167 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 47 and Section 58 — Arrest and Re-arrest — Violation of Fundamental Safeguards against Arrest — Procedure and Judicial Imprimatur Required for Re-arrest — Public Law Remedy – i. Mandatory Nature of Written Grounds of Arrest under Article 22(1) - The requirement to communicate grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS) is a mandatory, binding constitutional safeguard and not a mere procedural formality - The grounds must be communicated in writing in a language understood by the arrestee - Any infringement vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand, entitling the arrestee to immediate release - Procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest do not fall under a prejudice-oriented test; when there is a constitutional violation, the question of demonstrable prejudice does not arise - When released for violation of Article 22(1), the accused is not enlarged on bail, but released from illegal and unconstitutional detention; ii. Mandatory Production within 24 Hours under Article 22(2) - The constitutional mandate under Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC (Section 58 BNSS) requiring production of an arrestee before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours (excluding journey time) must be strictly and scrupulously observed - Detention beyond 24 hours without magisterial authorization is unconstitutional and unlawful, rendering the arrest otiose and vitiated, which infringes both Article 22(2) and Article 21. [Paras 20-33]

Procedure for Re-arrest / Fresh Custody Following Release for Breach of Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) - An accused who has suffered a breach of Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) does not enjoy a blanket permanent immunity from re-arrest - the investigating agency cannot automatically re-arrest the accused by executive fiat - Re-arrest requires prior judicial sanction/imprimatur; i. The investigating agency must file a formal application for custody before the concerned Magistrate setting forth the reasons and necessity for re-arrest and custodial interrogation, accompanied by an explanation for the initial default; ii. Such application can be moved only after furnishing the written grounds of arrest to the accused; iii. To eliminate foul play or collusion, the application must bear the prior endorsement of the immediate superior authority; iv. On the administrative side, the superior authority must transfer the investigation to another officer and initiate departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer(s); v. The Magistrate shall decide the application expeditiously, preferably within one week, adhering to principles of natural justice, and may grant custody only upon being satisfied with the bona fides of the explanation and the genuine necessity for re arrest; vi. The same procedure applies mutatis mutandis to breaches under Article 22(2). [Paras 24 - 38]

Distinction from Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC - Public Law Remedy of Compensation - Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (Section 187(2) BNSS) operates on a distinct footing - In default bail cases, re-arrest is permissible upon filing of the chargesheet on cogent grounds, whereas breaches under Article 22(1) and 22(2) occur at the threshold of the arrest itself and violate fundamental rights, requiring strict judicial safeguards before custody can be sought again - For illegal detention in violation of Article 22(2), the constitutional court may direct payment of compensation under public law remedies as exemplary damages / palliative relief for infringement of civil liberties, without relegating the citizen solely to private law remedies, though reserving liberty to claim damages under private civil law. [Relied on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500; Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576; Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799; Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240; Paras 28-36]

Case:  JASKARAN JEET SINGH DEOL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB | Crl.A. No. 4234/2026 Diary No. 35041 / 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment