The Supreme Court has held that once an accused is released on account of a breach of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the power to re-arrest that person cannot rest with the same police authority responsible for the violation, and must instead carry the imprimatur of a Magistrate before custody can be resumed. The Court held that this judicial check applies not merely to the constitutional guarantee of being informed of the grounds of arrest, but equally to the guarantee of being produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours, both of which the Court found had been breached in the case before it.

Referring to Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, the Bench directed that any application by the investigating agency seeking custody of a person so released must disclose the reasons for re-arrest, explain the earlier non-compliance, and carry the endorsement of an officer superior to the one who committed the violation, so that departmental accountability is triggered alongside any fresh custody request; the Magistrate must then decide such an application expeditiously, preferably within a week, applying principles of natural justice.

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed, “What is sought to be highlighted is that once there is a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the power to rearrest 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. 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 release and on further satisfaction that the accused needs to be re-arrested, he may pass an order permitting the investigating agency to rearrest”.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal for the appellant and Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared for the respondent.

The appellant was arrested on May 17, 2026 pursuant to an FIR registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act, alleging sexual and physical abuse of a minor girl. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate only on May 18, 2026, beyond the mandated twenty-four hours, and no written grounds of arrest had been furnished to him at any point.

The Magistrate held the arrest illegal for want of written grounds and ordered the appellant's release, while clarifying that the investigating agency was not precluded from proceeding afresh in accordance with law. The same officer who had made the original arrest moved a fresh remand application the same day, which a different Magistrate rejected as not maintainable, since grounds of arrest had still not been supplied and custody could not be sought in the accused's absence.

The appellant then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking a blanket restraint against his re-arrest, custody or the issuance of any warrant against him, arguing that having suffered violations of both Article 22(1) and 22(2), he had acquired an indefeasible right against future arrest in the same case.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the investigating agency could not be permanently restrained from seeking his arrest or custody, though it left the appellant to pursue independent legal remedies against the defaulting officers for the twenty-four-hour violation. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the investigating officer was suspended and the Station House Officer transferred, with departmental inquiry initiated against both.

Examining its precedents on Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court reaffirmed that furnishing written grounds of arrest is a mandatory, non-negotiable constitutional safeguard applicable across all offences, breach of which vitiates the arrest and entitles the arrestee to immediate release, irrespective of demonstrable prejudice.

“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 55 Article 22(1) shall hand over the investigation of the case to another officer, further directing departmental enquiry for such a serious lapse. If the enquiry culminates in adverse finding against the erring police officer(s), it would entail departmental action with entry in the service book of such officer(s)”, the Bench said.

Holding that permitting the same police force to re-arrest a person it had unconstitutionally detained would reduce the constitutional safeguard to an empty formality, the Court set aside both the High Court's order and the Magistrate's clarificatory observations. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying accusation and directed that copies of the judgment be circulated to all Directors General of Police and Registrars General of High Courts.

Cause Title: Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1022)

Appearances:

Appellant: Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate.

Respondent: Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Gopal Sankaranarayan, Senior Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: