In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab [2026 INSC 1022], the Supreme Court held that an arrest is rendered illegal where the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused in writing. The Court further directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a police officer who effects an arrest without furnishing such grounds.
Re-arrest When the Arrest Declared Illegal
Where the investigating agency seeks to re-arrest a person whose initial arrest has been declared illegal, it must first furnish the grounds of arrest to that person and obtain the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The officer who failed to furnish the grounds of arrest must seek an endorsement from a superior authority for the further custody of the accused. The superior authority must then entrust the further investigation to another officer and direct a departmental inquiry against the defaulting officer.
The Court laid down the following procedural safeguards when re-arrest is necessary:
- Where an accused has been released from custody for breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and the investigating agency is of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary for the furtherance of the investigation, it shall file an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking custody. The application shall state the reasons for re-arrest and the necessity for it.
- The application shall also contain an explanation for the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest at the first instance. Such an application may be moved only after the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the accused.
- To rule out any foul play or collusion, the application must bear the endorsement of the immediate superior authority. This is so that the superior authority is made aware that the concerned officer has committed an act unbecoming of the office by violating constitutional provisions, and that appropriate remedial action may be taken.
- On receipt of such an application, the Magistrate shall decide it expeditiously, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and, as directed inMihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 1288] preferably within one week of its submission.
- If the Magistrate is satisfied that there were bona fide reasons for the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest at the first instance, and that the grounds were furnished subsequent to the release, the Magistrate may, where re-arrest of the accused is necessary, pass an order permitting the investigating agency to re-arrest the accused.
- On the administrative side, when an application seeking endorsement for the custody of an accused released for violation of Article 22(1) is placed before the superior authority, that authority shall hand over the investigation to another officer and direct a departmental inquiry into such a serious lapse. If the inquiry results in adverse findings against the police officer, departmental action shall follow, with an entry made in the officer’s service book.
Supreme Court precedents relied upon
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023: INSC: 866]: the Court held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right, and that written grounds must be furnished as a matter of course and without exception.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024: INSC: 414]: the Court held that infringement of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and remand, and that a subsequent charge-sheet cannot validate an arrest that was unconstitutional from its inception.
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2025: INSC:162]: the Court held that if the grounds of arrest are not communicated, the arrestee’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) is violated and the arrest is rendered illegal.
- Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 1288]: a three-judge Bench held that the grounds must be in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, and furnished at least two hours before production before the Magistrate.
