Back
Allahabad High Court: While in Custody Requires Article 22 Grounds, But Challenge Limited
In a significant ruling that clarifies the rights of an accused already in custody, the , has held that a second formal arrest of a person under remand in another case constitutes a . This , the court ruled, attracts the fundamental safeguard under , requiring the arresting authority to communicate the to the accused. However, in a crucial caveat, the court also held that a challenge based on non-compliance with Article 22(1) must be raised during the investigation stage—specifically before the filing of a charge sheet and the taking of cognizance—and cannot be entertained later when the trial has already commenced.
The judgment, delivered on , by Justice Manish Mathur in , resolves a recurring question in criminal procedure: whether a person already in custody in one case can be "arrested" in another case, and if so, what constitutional protections apply. The court’s answer splits the issue into two distinct parts, offering both clarity and a practical limitation for litigants.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Moti Ram Jaat, was in judicial custody in connection with an earlier FIR when the sought his production through a . He was then formally arrested in a second case—Case Crime No. 4 of 2025 under —and remanded to judicial custody. A later arrayed him as accused No. 2.
Challenging his formal arrest and the subsequent remand orders, the petitioner argued that no were communicated to him or to his family members, thereby violating . He sought to have the remand order set aside on this ground. The State, however, countered that since the accused was already in custody, the second arrest was merely a —not a —and therefore, the constitutional requirement to inform the did not apply.
, Not a
Justice Mathur began by rejecting the State's characterization of the event as a mere . Relying on the ’s decision in , the court noted that an accused already in custody in one criminal case can nonetheless be "formally arrested" in relation to a different offence, even while continuing to remain in custody. The in that case had held that such a person can be formally arrested in the subsequent case and that a (or PT warrant) can be obtained to produce the accused before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Applying this principle, Justice Mathur observed:
“In view of aforesaid judgments and discussion made herein-above, it is thus evident that arrest of an accused while he is under remand in a previous case would amount to a in case of subsequent detention and the subsequent remand order having been passed.”
The court expressly concluded that “second arrest while in custody would amount to a .” This holding clarifies a long-standing ambiguity and brings the procedural law in line with constitutional guarantees. Once the arrest is classified as fresh, the protections under Article 22(1) become immediately applicable.
The Constitutional Mandate of Article 22(1)
provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The court held that this fundamental right extends to a , even if the accused is already in custody. The court further linked this requirement to , which mandates that the be communicated in writing.
Drawing on the ’s decision in , Justice Mathur emphasized that the must be communicated in a manner that effectively conveys sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds—and in a language understood by the arrested person. The court also noted that the with Article 22(1) lies on the investigating officer or agency when the accused disputes such compliance. Non-compliance, the had held in Vihaan Kumar , and the consequential remand orders.
The Crucial Limitation: When Can the Challenge Be Raised?
Having established that the second arrest was a requiring compliance with Article 22(1), the court then turned to the petitioner’s specific challenge. The critical question was whether the petitioner could still raise the Article 22(1) violation at the stage when the trial had already begun.
Justice Mathur drew a clear line. The safeguards and the consequences of non-compliance discussed in Vihaan Kumar operate at the stage of initial arrest and remand under —and certainly not after the applicability of (which deals with supply of documents to the accused). Once the charge sheet has been filed, cognizance taken under , and the trial commenced, the challenge to the initial detention or remand on the ground of non-compliance with Article 22(1) becomes untimely.
The court noted that in the present case, the charge sheet had been filed, cognizance taken, and the trial was underway. The petitioner had not raised the Article 22(1) challenge before the ended. Therefore, the court held that the plea could not be entertained at that belated stage.
“Since trial in a criminal case commences with charge sheet having been filed and , obviously as indicated herein above, once cognizance is taken under Section 190 Cr.P.C and after Section 204 and 207 Cr.P.C. have been complied with, the said observations made in Vihaan Kumar (supra) would be of no consequence.”
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, while leaving the substantive legal principle intact for future cases.
Practical Implications for Criminal Law Practice
This judgment carries significant implications for criminal practitioners and accused persons. On one hand, it affirms that a person in custody cannot be formally arrested in a second case without providing the constitutionally mandated . This prevents investigative agencies from bypassing Article 22(1) by relying on the fact that the accused is already detained. The requirement to communicate grounds also ensures that the accused’s family and legal representatives can take prompt steps to secure release, if permissible.
On the other hand, the ruling imposes a strict timeline on raising such challenges. An accused who believes that his second arrest violated Article 22(1) must bring the challenge at the earliest opportunity—during the remand hearing or before the investigation concludes with the filing of a charge sheet. Waiting until after charges are framed will almost certainly bar the remedy, even if the arrest was initially unconstitutional.
The decision thus underscores the importance of vigilance at the . For defense lawyers, it is a reminder to meticulously document the communication of grounds—or the lack thereof—and to move the court immediately if the constitutional safeguard is breached.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Moti Ram Jaat strikes a careful balance. It reinforces the fundamental right of an arrested person to know why they are being held, even when already in custody, but it also respects the finality of criminal proceedings once the investigation stage is complete. By clarifying that a second arrest is a , the court has closed a procedural loophole. By limiting the window for challenge, it has brought clarity to the law of criminal procedure. For legal professionals, this ruling serves as a clear guide: act promptly to enforce Article 22(1), or risk losing the remedy altogether.
