Re-arrest cannot be left to same investigating officer; Magistrate’s approval, superior officer’s endorsement made necessary
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 26 :
The Supreme Court has laid down stringent safeguards governing the re-arrest of an accused whose earlier arrest was found to have violated constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in its judgment in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, delivered on September 21, 2026, held that an investigating agency cannot simply re-arrest a person at its own discretion after the accused has been released on account of violation of Article 22(1) or Article 22(2).
The Court stressed that the constitutional requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory safeguard and not a mere procedural formality.
Where the grounds of arrest are required to be furnished in writing, they must ordinarily be communicated in a language understood by the arrested person.
MAGISTRATE’S APPROVAL NECESSARY FOR SUBSEQUENT CUSTODY
The Supreme Court held that if investigators subsequently consider custodial interrogation necessary, they must comply with the constitutional requirements and approach the concerned Magistrate seeking custody.
The application seeking custody must clearly disclose the reasons and necessity for re-arrest and explain why the grounds of arrest were not furnished at the time of the original arrest.
The Court further directed that such an application must carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority, ensuring that the decision to seek re-arrest is not left exclusively to the officer responsible for the earlier constitutional violation.
The Bench thereby required judicial imprimatur before a subsequent custodial step is taken, providing an additional safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.
INVESTIGATION TO BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER OFFICER
The Bench further directed that where an accused has been released because of violation of Article 22(1) and the investigating agency subsequently seeks custody, the investigation should be handed over to another investigating officer.
The superior authority has also been directed to initiate a departmental enquiry against the officer or officers responsible for the constitutional violation.
If the departmental enquiry results in an adverse finding, appropriate departmental action should follow, including an entry in the concerned officer’s service record, the Court directed.
ARTICLE 22(2): 24-HOUR PROTECTION ALSO REAFFIRMED
The Supreme Court also examined the constitutional requirement under Article 22(2), which mandates that an arrested person be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey.
The Court held that where an accused is released because of a violation of Article 22(2), the safeguards governing any subsequent attempt to obtain custody must also be followed.
The Bench further noted that, depending upon the circumstances, the High Court may consider compensation as a public law remedy for violation of constitutional requirements.
GRAVITY OF ALLEGED OFFENCE CANNOT OVERRIDE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Bench underscored that constitutional safeguards relating to personal liberty do not depend upon the seriousness or gravity of the alleged offence.
The Court made it clear that the protections guaranteed under Article 22 are not dependent upon the nature or gravity of the offence.
Whenever the Constitution or law prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty, that procedure must be strictly and rigorously followed, the Court observed.
CASE INVOLVED BNS AND POCSO ALLEGATIONS
The case arose from the arrest of the appellant in connection with allegations invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
According to the judgment, the appellant was arrested on May 17, 2026. The Magistrate subsequently found that written grounds of arrest had not been supplied and directed his release.
The record also concerned the constitutional requirement relating to production of an arrested person before a Magistrate within the prescribed 24-hour period.
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and allowed the appeal.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations against the appellant.
The Court said that if the respondents consider custodial interrogation necessary, they must follow the procedure laid down in the earlier Mihir Rajesh Shah judgment along with the additional safeguards prescribed in the present case.
JUDGMENT TO BE CIRCULATED ACROSS STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, Registrars General of the High Courts and Directors of State Judicial Academies.
The directions are intended to ensure wider awareness and compliance with constitutional safeguards governing arrest and subsequent custodial proceedings.
The judgment is reported as Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022, Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026, decided on September 21, 2026.(KNC)