The Supreme Court has clarified the procedure that investigating agencies must follow before re-arresting an accused whose earlier arrest was declared illegal for violating the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that an accused released because of violations of Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) cannot simply be picked up again by the same investigating authority. Any subsequent custody must follow judicial scrutiny and the procedure laid down by the Court.
Background
The case arose from FIR No. 73/2026 registered in Punjab under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol was arrested on May 17, 2026. He was produced before the Magistrate on May 18, but the investigating agency had not supplied him with written grounds of arrest. The Magistrate therefore held the arrest illegal and directed his immediate release.
The investigating agency subsequently sought custody again. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application, noting that the grounds of arrest had still not been supplied and that custody could not be granted in the accused's absence.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court later held that the investigating agency was not barred from seeking a warrant, re-arresting the appellant or seeking his custody, provided the subsequent arrest complied with law.
The Supreme Court examined both safeguards contained in Article 22.
Article 22(1) requires an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest, while Article 22(2) requires production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding necessary travel time.
The Court relied extensively on its earlier decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah, holding that written grounds of arrest must ordinarily be supplied to the arrested person. If the requirement is not followed, the arrest becomes illegal and the person is entitled to release.
The Bench further stated:
"When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise. The safeguards adumbrated in Article 22(1) are not mere procedural safeguards; these are fundamental principles which are required to be followed in the event liberty of a person is sought to be curtailed."
The Court said that where an accused has been released because of an Article 22(1) violation and the investigating agency still considers custodial interrogation necessary, it must approach the concerned Magistrate.
The application must explain why re-arrest is necessary and why the grounds of arrest were not supplied initially. The grounds of arrest must first be furnished to the accused. The application must also carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.
The Magistrate must then consider the request expeditiously, preferably within a week, while following principles of natural justice.
The Court explained:
"Once there is a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the power to re-arrest 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."
The Bench prescribed a similar procedure where Article 22(2) has been violated. It also noted that, depending on the circumstances, the High Court may consider compensation as a public law remedy for an Article 22(2) violation.
The Supreme Court set aside and quashed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated May 29, 2026, as well as the relevant observations made by the Magistrate on May 18, 2026.
It directed that if the respondents consider custodial interrogation of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol necessary, they must follow the procedure laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah and the safeguards prescribed in the present judgment.
The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the accusations.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026
Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: September 21, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
