LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 21 September 2026

Does the re-arrest procedure apply also where Article 22(2) is breached by detention beyond twenty-four hours?

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

The procedure for re-arrest after release applies also where Article 22(2) is breached by detention beyond twenty-four hours.

Yes. The same procedure, an application before the Magistrate with the superior authority's endorsement, has to be followed when there is a breach of clause (2) of Article 22 and the investigating agency still wants custody after release. Depending on the facts, the High Court may also direct payment of compensation as part of the public law remedy, with liberty to the accused to avail his remedy under the private civil law.

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 36Similar to what we have held and directed in paragraphs 24 to 25.1 above, the same procedure has to be followed when there is a breach of clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and if the investigating agency still wants custody of the accused after his release for such constitutional violation. Additionally, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court may direct payment of compensation as part of the public law remedy in a case of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, with the liberty to the accused to avail his remedy under the private civil law.
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 re-arrest of an accused released for breach of Article 22(1) require the Magistrate's permission?Does non-supply of written grounds of arrest amount to a breach of Article 22(1) that vitiates it without demonstrable prejudice?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