Supreme Court of India· 21 September 2026

Does re-arrest of an accused released for breach of Article 22(1) require the Magistrate's permission?

JASKARAN JEET SINGH DEOL v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2026 INSC 1022 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4234 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art.22(1) Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Re-arrest of an accused released for breach of Article 22(1) requires the Magistrate's permission on an application, not the police's discretion.

Yes. Once there is a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the power to re-arrest must not be left to the discretion of the very authority that violated it and must have judicial imprimatur. The investigating agency must apply to the Magistrate for custody, stating the reasons and necessity and the explanation for non-supply of grounds, only after furnishing the grounds of arrest and with the endorsement of the immediate superior authority; the Magistrate decides expeditiously, preferably within a week, and the superior authority shall hand over the investigation to another officer and direct departmental enquiry.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.22(1) — Art.22(2) — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.50, 57 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss.47, 58 — Re-Arrest — Grounds Of Arrest In Writing — Judicial Imprimatur — Compensation — Constitution of India — Art.22(1) — Written Grounds Of Arrest — Breach Vitiates Arrest — Held: Under Article 22(1), the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused in writing, in a language he understands, as a matter of course. Breach vitiates the arrest, no question of prejudice arises, and release is not on bail. (¶23) Constitution of India — Art.22(1) — Re-Arrest After Release — Judicial Imprimatur — Held further: After release for breach of Article 22(1), re-arrest cannot be left to the discretion of the police who violated it. The investigating agency must apply to the Magistrate for custody, with reasons, after furnishing the grounds, with the superior's endorsement. (¶24, 25) Constitution of India — Art.22(2) — Production Within Twenty-Four Hours — Compensation — Held further: The same procedure applies where Article 22(2) is breached, and the High Court may direct payment of compensation as a public law remedy, with liberty to avail the private civil law remedy. (¶36) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Default Bail — Re-Arrest Does Not Apply — Held further: Decisions permitting re-arrest after default bail do not apply, as both infringements here were at the threshold of arrest. Appeal allowed; High Court order quashed. (¶34, 35, 38)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 24While we are bound by the ratio laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah with the conclusions summarized in paragraph 66 of the said judgment and endorse the course of action declared in paragraph 65 thereof, we would like to further stress upon and strengthen the safeguards introduced by way of the said judgment when it comes to re-arrest of an accused who is released from custody for breach of Article 22(1). If upon release of such an accused, the investigating agency is still of the opinion that for furthering the course of investigation it is necessary to have custodial interrogation of the accused, then as directed in paragraph 65 of Mihir Rajesh Shah, the investigating agency has to file an application before the concerned Magistrate for custody mentioning therein the reasons for re-arrest of the accused and the necessity for the same. The application should also contain the explanation for non-supply of the grounds of arrest to the accused at the first instance. However, this application can only be moved after furnishing the grounds of arrest to the accused. To rule out any foul play or collusion, such an application must have the endorsement of the immediate superior authority. This is because the immediate superior authority should know that the concerned officer has committed an unbecoming act of violating a constitutional provision for which necessary remedial steps will have to be taken. On receipt of such application with the endorsement, the concerned Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and as directed in Mihir Rajesh Shah preferably within a week of its submission by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

Paragraph 25What is sought to be highlighted is that 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. 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 re-arrest.

Acts & Sections

Art.22(1) Constitution of IndiaArt.22(2) Constitution of Indias.50 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.57 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.47 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s.58 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of JASKARAN JEET SINGH DEOL v. STATE OF PUNJAB — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does non-supply of written grounds of arrest amount to a breach of Article 22(1) that vitiates it without demonstrable prejudice?Does the re-arrest procedure apply also where Article 22(2) is breached by detention beyond twenty-four hours?Do decisions permitting re-arrest after default bail apply where Article 22(1) and (2) are breached at the threshold of arrest?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections