Court says accused released for defective arrest cannot be re-arrested without following Supreme Court-mandated procedure under Article 22 and BNSS.
The Delhi High Court has held that the re-arrest of an accused, who had earlier been released due to violation of constitutional safeguards during arrest, is illegal if the investigating agency does not follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah and reaffirmed in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manoj Chaudhary, who challenged his detention in connection with FIR No. 493/2026 registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, North-East Delhi.
The petitioner had first been detained on 20 July 2026 and produced before the magistrate only on 23 July 2026. The trial court had noticed that the grounds of arrest supplied to him did not bear any date or time, and also lacked necessary details of the incident, contrary to the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). On that basis, he was ordered to be released on bail.
However, the petitioner was later re-arrested on 21 August 2026. He challenged the re-arrest, arguing that the police had not complied with the procedure required by law before taking him back into custody. The State, through counsel, admitted before the High Court that before the re-arrest, no report had been sent to the superior authority and no permission had been obtained from the concerned court.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab. The court reiterated that where an accused is released because of breach of Article 22, re-arrest cannot be made at the discretion of the investigating agency alone. The investigating officer must first furnish written grounds of arrest, obtain endorsement or approval from the immediate superior authority, and then move the concerned court or magistrate seeking permission for re-arrest by explaining the reasons and necessity.
The Bench noted that this mandatory procedure had not been followed in the present case. The petitioner was re-arrested merely because additional offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were added to the FIR, which by itself could not justify a fresh arrest in the absence of compliance with constitutional safeguards.
Holding the re-arrest to be illegal and unconstitutional, the court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as imposed by the JMFC on 23 July 2026. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
The judgment reinforces that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental constitutional safeguard, and any breach of that right vitiates detention. It also underscores that once release is ordered for such violation, the investigating agency must obtain judicial permission before attempting re-arrest.
Bottom Line :
Habeas corpus - Re-arrest of accused released due to violation of Article 22 cannot be made without following procedure laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah and reiterated in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol - Investigating Officer must furnish written grounds of arrest, obtain endorsement/permission from superior authority, and move concerned Court/Magistrate seeking permission for re-arrest stating reasons and necessity - Re-arrest without such compliance is illegal and unconstitutional.
Statutory provision(s): Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Manoj Chaudhary v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987642
