The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held that when a person already in custody in one criminal case is formally arrested in connection with another case, the second arrest amounts to a fresh arrest. However, the Court ruled that a challenge based on violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution cannot be raised indefinitely after the investigation stage has ended.
Justice Manish Mathur delivered the judgment on October 1, 2026, in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background
The petition was filed by Moti Ram Jaat @ Moti Ram Jaat Fauji, challenging his formal arrest dated August 29, 2025, and subsequent remand orders. The proceedings arose from Case Crime No. 4 of 2025 concerning Sections 148, 152 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner had been arrayed as accused No. 2 in a supplementary charge sheet filed by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad.
The petitioner argued that the grounds of his arrest had not been communicated to him or his family members, violating the fundamental safeguard under Article 22(1). The State, however, contended that he was already in custody in another case and that the proceedings represented only a change of custody.
Justice Mathur rejected the State's contention that the second arrest was merely a change of custody. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani, the Court held:
"In view of aforesaid judgments and discussion made herein-above, it is thus evident that arrest of an accused while he is under remand in a previous case would amount to a fresh arrest in case of subsequent detention and the subsequent remand order having been passed."
The Court further held that a fresh arrest attracts the constitutional requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1), read with Section 48(2) BNSS.
However, the Court distinguished between an initial arrest and later stages of criminal proceedings. It held that the protection against an unconstitutional arrest could not be invoked at a stage when proceedings under Section 167 CrPC had already ended.
The Court noted that charges had already been framed and the trial was underway. Since the petitioner had not raised the Article 22(1) challenge before the Section 167 stage came to an end, the Court held that he could not raise the plea at that belated stage.
The Court therefore answered the final question against the petitioner and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Case Details
- Case Title: Moti Ram Jaat @ Moti Ram Jaat Fauji v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Another
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 2601 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Manish Mathur
- Decision Date: October 1, 2026
