Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 2045/2025 | CRL.M.A. 19062/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anurag Jain, Mr. MM Khan, Mr. Amit Chadha, Mr. Atin Chadha, Ms. Munisha Chadha, Mr. Sanjog Singh, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Saarthak Sethi, Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Ms. Taiba Khan, Mr. Bhanu Malhotra, Mr. Gopeshwar Singh Chander, Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, Mr. Uvesh Khan, Ms. Aditi Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Mr. Sushant Bali, Mr. Arijit Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Jha, Ms. Samridhi Dobbal, Mr. Krishna Mohan Chander, Mr. Hritik Maurya
Re-arrest is permissible following an initial illegal arrest on procedural grounds if sufficient material exists and procedural safeguards are fulfilled, reinforcing the balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 103/3(5) - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Re-arrest of petitioners for organized crime - Initial arrest declared non-est due to non-supply of grounds - Subsequent re-arrest justified following provision compliance - Court held rights of accused need not obstruct due process. (Paras 4, 14, 43)
(B) Procedural safeguards - Requirement to furnish grounds of arrest must be adhered to; procedural lapses do not provide immunity from re-arrest where sufficient material exists. (Paras 14, 23, 34)
(C) Legal implications of re-arrest - State permitted to rectify procedural deficiencies and re-arrest accused. (Paras 32, 34, 43)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were initially arrested for involvement in an organized crime syndicate linked to a murder but were released as their first arrest was declared illegal for not informing them of the grounds. They were subsequently re-arrested after fulfilling procedural obligations.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that re-arrest was lawful as it remedied the procedural deficiencies, allowing for future arrests based on existing evidence.
Issues: The key issues included the legality of re-arrest after a previous arrest was declared non-est due to procedural irregularities and the adequacy of grounds of arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that procedural adherence is essential but does not necessarily create immunity; re-arrest is permissible where proper grounds are furnished and sufficient evidence exists.
Result: Petition dismissed; re-arrest upheld.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Anwar Khan @ Chacha & Ors. vs. The State NCT of Delhi:
Case Overview and Procedural History * The petitioners challenged their arrest dated 10.06.2025, alleging it was unlawful due to procedural irregularities, specifically the non-supply of grounds of arrest. (!) * The central issue was whether the re-arrest of the petitioners could be sustained after their initial arrest was declared non-est due to the failure to furnish written grounds. (!) * The incident originated from a murder on 07.12.2024, which evolved into an investigation revealing a larger organized crime syndicate linked to gang rivalry and vengeance. (!) (!) (!) * Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) were invoked, and the investigation was transferred to the Special Cell. (!) * The petitioners (Anwar Khan @ Chacha, Hasim Baba @ Asim, Sameer @ Baba, and Zoya Khan) were initially arrested on 12.05.2025 but were released on 13.05.2025 because the arresting officer failed to communicate the gist of the material forming the grounds for arrest. (!) (!) * The Court held the initial arrest non-est and directed the release of the petitioners, clarifying that the State had the liberty to complete the process as per law. (!) (!) * The investigating agency subsequently re-arrested the petitioners on 10.06.2025 after complying with procedural safeguards and furnishing detailed grounds. (!)
Arguments Presented * Petitioners' Argument: They contended that the re-arrest was illegal as the initial arrest was declared non-est by a competent court, and no new statutory provision authorizes re-arrest in such circumstances. They argued that allowing re-arrest would render judicial findings infructuous and enable investigating agencies to bypass judicial orders. (!) (!) (!) * State's Argument: The State argued that the initial order was based solely on procedural irregularity (non-supply of grounds) and not on a lack of material. They submitted that once procedural deficiencies are rectified, there is no bar to re-arrest, citing precedents from the Bombay and Kerala High Courts. (!) (!) (!)
Court's Analysis and Findings * Absence of New Material: The Court rejected the argument that fresh evidence was required for re-arrest. It clarified that the initial order declaring the arrest non-est was based purely on technical grounds (form and content of the arrest memo) and did not assess the sufficiency of the evidence against the petitioners. (!) (!) (!) * Permissibility of Re-arrest: The Court held that there is no statutory or constitutional bar on re-arresting an individual whose earlier arrest was invalidated for procedural lapses. Granting blanket immunity due to a procedural lapse would defeat the ends of justice, especially in cases involving serious offences like organized crime and murder. (!) (!) (!) * Precedents: The Court relied on Kavita Manikikar v. CBI, Vicky Bharat Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra, and Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam to establish that procedural non-compliance does not preclude future arrest if the defect is cured and sufficient material exists. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Compliance at Re-arrest: The Court noted that at the time of re-arrest, detailed and specific grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioners, fulfilling the mandatory requirements of law. (!) (!) (!)
Conclusion * The Court concluded that the re-arrest was lawful as it remedied the procedural deficiencies of the initial arrest, allowing for future arrests based on existing evidence. (!) * The petition was dismissed, and the orders upholding the legality of the re-arrest were upheld. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge their arrest as unlawful. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. murder leads to investigation revealing gang involvement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. mcoca invoked due to organized crime syndicate. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. initial arrests declared unlawful. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
FACTUAL BACKDROP ........................................................................... 3
The Murder on 07.12.2024 .................................................................................. 3
The Invocation of MCOCA ................................................................................ 6
Uncovering the Role of Petitioners in the Organised Crime Syndicate &
Their Arrest ........................................................................................................... 6
The Controversy of Re-Arrest ............................................................................ 8
THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ........................................................... 17
On behalf of the Petitioners .............................................................................. 17
On behalf of the State ........................................................................................ 19
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS .................................................................... 22
The Alleged Absence of New Material at the Time of Re-Arrest ................ 22
Furnishing of Grounds of Arrest to the Petitioners ...................................... 25
Whether Re-Arrest is Permissible After Declaration of Initial Arrest as Non-Est due to Procedural Irregularity? ......................................................... 27
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 34
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The petitioners, by way of this writ petition, seek a declaration that their arrest dated 10.06.2025 – in relation to FIR No. 629/2024, dated 07.12.2024, registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi and currently being investigated by the Special Cell – was unlawful and unconstitutional; a direction for their immediate release from custody in the said FIR; and a declaration that the judicial remand orders dated 11.06.2025 and 16.06.2025, passed by the learned Vacation Judges, Patiala House Courts, as well as all subsequent proceedings, are null and void in law. The petitioners also challenge and pray for the setting aside of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned ASJ-03/Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which upheld the legality of their re-arrest.
2. The central issue that falls for consideration is whether the re- arrest of the petitioners – after their earlier arrest in the same FIR was held to be non-est in the eyes of law by the learned ASJ on the ground of non-supply of grounds of arrest – can now be sustained in view of fresh material and compliance with procedural safeguards.
FACTUAL BACKDROP The Murder on 07.12.2024
3. The present case unfolds an incident that took place on 07.12.2024, which set in motion the events culminating in the present petition. On that morning, at around 08:25 AM, one Sumit Kumar Nahata was returning home on his Scooty along with his friend, Sunil Jain, after their routine walk at Yamuna Sports Complex. As they halted at the red light near Vishwas Nagar, two unidentified individuals on a blue-coloured TVS Apache motorcycle allegedly drove up beside them and, without warning, opened fire, discharging about 5 to 6 rounds at Sunil Jain. The assailants immediately fled the scene. Sunil Jain was rushed to Max Hospital, Patparganj, where he was declared brought dead. Based on the statement of Sumit Kumar Nahata, the present FIR i.e. FIR No. 629/2024 was registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 103 /3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [hereafter „ BNS ‟] read with Sections 25 /27 of the Arms Act , 1959. The investigation was thereafter entrusted to the Specia
