Article 22(1) Challenge To Initial Arrest Cannot Be Raised After Section 207 CrPC Compliance: Allahabad High Court

The Court held that once the police report and accompanying documents have been supplied under Section 207 CrPC, the accused is aware of the allegations and the outcome of the investigation. Consequently, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest cannot be invoked afresh against subsequent remand under Sections 209 or 309 CrPC.

At the same time, the Court held that formally arresting a person in another case while he is already in custody amounts to a fresh arrest. The safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 48(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 would, therefore, apply at the initial stage of the second arrest.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the petitioner’s formal arrest and subsequent judicial and police custody remand orders in a second criminal case while he was already in custody in an earlier matter.

A Bench of Justice Manish Mathur observed: “Evidently, once provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. stand complied with, obviously the accused is aware of the allegations levelled against him and also with regard to the outcome of the investigation against him. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be said that he is again required to be made aware of the reasons and grounds of arrest as envisaged under Article 22(1) of Constitution.”

The Court added: “The aforesaid provisions therefore clearly implicate a situation where provisions of Article 22(1) of Constitution would be required to be followed only till the existence of the stage of Section 167 Cr.P.C. and not thereafter, particularly not after Section 207 Cr.P.C. stands complied with.”

Advocate Shantanu Singh appeared for the petitioner. Additional Government Advocate Shivnath Tilhari appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioner was already in custody in an earlier criminal case when the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad secured his production through a prisoner transit warrant. He was formally arrested in a second case and was thereafter remanded first to judicial custody and subsequently to police custody.

Invoking Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner challenged the formal arrest and remand orders. He contended that neither he nor his family members had been informed of the grounds of arrest, resulting in a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He also alleged non-compliance with the statutory safeguards under the BNSS.

The State argued that the petitioner had already been in custody and that the later proceedings merely involved a change of custody rather than a fresh arrest. It further submitted that a charge sheet had subsequently been filed, cognizance had been taken, and the initial remand could no longer be challenged independently.

Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the State’s contention that the petitioner’s formal arrest in the second case amounted merely to a change of custody.

Relying on Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani and Another (2024), the Court observed that a person already in custody in one case may be formally arrested in another case. Such an arrest does not constitute a continuation of the earlier arrest but is a fresh arrest requiring compliance with the safeguards applicable to an arrested person.

The Court consequently held that Article 22(1) of the Constitution, read with Section 48(2) BNSS, applied to the petitioner’s formal arrest in the subsequent case.

“Once it has been held that subsequent formal arrest of an accused who is already under custody would amount to a fresh arrest, it necessarily follows that provisions of Article 22(1) read with section 48(2) BNSS would require to be followed,” the Court stated.

Referring to Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Court held that communicating the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1). A failure to comply with the safeguard vitiates the arrest and the initial remand order and entitles the accused to be released.

The Court also referred to Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) while examining the nature and manner of communicating the grounds of arrest.

It observed that the grounds must be conveyed meaningfully to the arrested person. The communication must also enable the person’s relatives, friends or nominated individuals to take prompt legal steps for securing his release.

“In case of violation of specific provisions of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, the initial detention as well as an order of remand would be rendered illegal due to which an accused is required to be set at liberty forthwith,” the Court held.

The Court considered the Division Bench ruling in Neeraj and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2026), which concerned the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition challenging detention after remand.

It observed that the ruling in Neeraj did not directly govern the present proceedings because the petitioner had invoked Section 528 BNSS to challenge the legality of the arrest and remand orders instead of seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

The Court also examined Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab (1952), Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi (1953), Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974), Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI, Bombay (1994) and the Allahabad High Court’s Full Bench ruling in Bal Mukund Jaiswal v. Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi and Another (1997).

The Court stated that these decisions concerned habeas corpus or preventive detention and recognised that an accused detained under a valid subsequent remand order could not be released solely because the initial detention suffered from illegality.

Analysing Sections 167, 204, 207, 209 and 309 CrPC, the Court explained that the initial detention and remand remain governed by Section 167 until the investigation is completed and the police report is filed. After cognizance, the accused is supplied the police report and other material under Section 207 before commitment or further remand under Sections 209 or 309.

The Court held that the purpose of Article 22(1) is to ensure that an arrested person is not kept unaware of the allegations and the grounds for his arrest and can effectively defend himself. According to the Court, that purpose stands substantially fulfilled once the documents contemplated under Section 207 are supplied.

“The underlying purpose of Article 22(1) of Constitution is that an accused should not remain in the dark with regard to allegations levelled against him and the reasons and grounds of his arrest so that he or his family members can raise an effective defence against such allegations. The broad contours of Article 22(1), therefore, stand substantively satisfied at the stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C.,” the Court observed.

The Court construed Vihaan Kumar as governing the initial arrest and remand under Section 167 CrPC. It noted that the Supreme Court had not considered remand under Sections 209 and 309 CrPC and had expressly clarified that an Article 22(1) violation would not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet or trial.

It consequently held that the ruling could not be invoked to challenge remand after cognizance, compliance with Section 207 and the commencement of trial.

Conclusion

Applying these principles, the Court observed that charges had already been framed and the trial was underway. Since the proceedings had moved beyond the Section 167 CrPC stage, the petitioner could not raise the Article 22(1) challenge at that belated stage.

The Court accordingly dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Moti Ram Jaat @ Moti Ram Jaat Fauji v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:70349)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Shantanu Singh, Saiyad Farhan Ali and Shailendra Yadav

Respondents: Additional Government Advocate Shivnath Tilhari

Click here to read/download Judgment