Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 1150

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11103 of 2026)
Decided On : 21-09-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR Mr. D. S. Sobti, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kataria, Adv. Mr. Sultan Singh Sangha, Adv. Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Mittal, Adv. Mr. Garvit Solanki, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Vishwakarma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Japman Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshat Patria, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Uday Jain, Adv. Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr./Ms. Indumugi C., Adv. Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajkanwar Singh, Adv. Mr. Prabhjot Singh Waraich, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shivani Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravideep Badyal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shandil, Adv. Mr. Sainyam Bhadwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Prafull Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Snehil Himanshu, Adv.

Re-arrest of a person released for violations of Articles 22(1) or 22(2) requires judicial sanction via a Magistrate's order, based on a reasoned application endorsed by a superior authority, to ensure fundamental liberties are not compromised by arbitrary executive discretion.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22(1), and 22(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 47 and 58 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 50, 57, and 482 - Right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Furnishing written grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) and not a mere procedural formality; failure to provide such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to immediate release from unconstitutional detention (Paras 20.4, 23).

(B) Re-arrest of Accused - Procedure following release for constitutional violation - Once a person is released due to a breach of Article 22(1), the power to re-arrest cannot be left to the sole discretion of the authority that committed the violation; such action requires judicial imprimatur. The investigating agency must file an application for custody before the concerned Magistrate, stating reasons for re-arrest and an explanation for the initial non-compliance, which must be endorsed by the immediate superior authority to ensure accountability (Paras 24, 25).

(C) Production before Magistrate - Article 22(2) - Detaining an arrested person beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate is a flagrant violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(2) and Article 21, rendering the detention illegal and the arrest otiose. Such violations may entitle the affected person to compensation as a public law remedy (Paras 29.3, 31, 36).

Facts of the case:
An appellant was arrested for serious offences involving a minor. The arrest was declared illegal by a Magistrate because the written grounds of arrest were not provided and the appellant was produced before the court beyond the mandated 24-hour period. Following the release, the investigating agency attempted to seek re-custody. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition to restrain re-arrest, holding that the agency could seek re-arrest provided it complied with the law. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's approach was insufficient as it did not account for the sacrosanct nature of the fundamental rights violated. A person released for constitutional infractions is not enlarged on bail but is released from illegal detention; therefore, any subsequent arrest requires rigorous judicial oversight and administrative endorsement to prevent executive abuse.

Issues: Whether an accused who has suffered a breach of Articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution can be re-arrested for the same offence, and if so, what is the mandatory procedure to be followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional mandates of Article 22(1) and 22(2) are non-negotiable and apply regardless of the gravity of the offence. Because these rights are linked to personal liberty under Article 21, any breach vitiates the arrest. To balance the interests of investigation and liberty, re-arrest after such a release must be sanctioned by a Magistrate's order based on a reasoned application endorsed by a superior officer, ensuring that the arrest is not a result of arbitrary executive action.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

By filing this appeal, appellant has assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in CRM-M-31323-2026(O&M) (Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol Vs. State of Punjab), whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant by holding that the investigating agency cannot be prohibited or restrained from seeking warrants of arrest against the appellant or from re-arresting him or seeking his custody/remand.

2. This appeal raises an important issue of wide constitutional import. The question is, can an accused who has suffered breach of both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India be re-arrested for the same offence? If so, under what circumstances, in what manner and the procedure that is required to be followed in such a case.

3. Though it is not necessary for a detailed reference to the facts i.e. the allegations against the accused-appellant, nonetheless for a proper perspective and for completion of the narrative, relevant facts may be briefly set out.

3.1. Informant lodged a first information on 13.05.2026 before the Mataur Police Station in the district of SAS Nagar (Punjab) alleging that his wife had left his company and started living with the accused-appellant from about October-November, 2024 taking with her both his daughters including the alleged victim girl, being his elder daughter. On 09.05.2026, the elder daughter (alleged victim) came back to the company of the informant. It is stated that she narrated to the informant physical and sexual abuse committed on her by the accused-appellant from 25-26.10.2024 onwards, off and on. The first information was registered as FIR No. 73/2026 under Sections 64 , 65(1) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as amended (POCSO Act).

3.2. On 17.05.2026, at around 07:54 am, the appellant was arrested by the police whereafter he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate In-Charge (Duty) on the next day i.e. on 18.05.2026 at around noon for obtaining police remand for one day.

3.3. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate noted that though the appellant was arrested on 17.05.2026 and produced before her on 18.05.2026, no written grounds of arrest were provided to the appellant. After referring to the judgment of this Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500, the learned Magistrate held that the investigating agency had miserably failed to comply with the mandate of law of providing written grounds of arrest. Therefore, appropriate action should be taken against the officers at fault. For non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest, which is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution read with Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS), the appellant was directed to be released immediately since his arrest was rendered illegal. However, the learned Magistrate clarified that if the investigating agency finds it necessary, they can move an application for remand or custody, if required, alongwith the reasons and the necessity for the same after supplying the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant setting forth the explanation for non-supply thereof. The learned Magistrate further clarified that the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2026 would not preclude the investigating agency from proceeding in accordance with law and in strict compliance with the statutory and constitutional mandate.

3.4. On the same day itself i.e. 18.05.2026, the same Station House Officer Rupinder Singh, who had caused the arrest of the appellant without furnishing the grounds of arrest and who had moved the earlier remand application, again moved a fresh application for custody and remand of the accused-appellant. The following

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(SC) 1150

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUjjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol – AppellantVersusState Of Punjab – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11103 of 2026)Decided On : 21-09-2026

Re-arrest of a person released for violations of Articles 22(1) or 22(2) requires judicial sanction via a Magistrate's order, based on a reasoned application endorsed by a superior authority, to ensure fundamental liberties are not compromised by arbitrary executive discretion.

Cases Referred (19)

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11103 of 2026)
Decided On : 21-09-2026