1. Habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention and re-arrest without following prescribed procedure under Article 22 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Arun Bhardwaj, JJ
Manoj Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (CRL.) 3031/2026 | CRL.M.A. 30303/2026 | CRL.M.A.30302/2026
Important Points
Re-arrest of a person released for violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution is illegal unless the investigating agency follows the mandatory procedure of seeking judicial permission and superior authority endorsement.
Subject
Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitutional Law - Article 22(1) - Grounds of Arrest - Mandatory requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest to the accused; non-compliance vitiates the arrest and entitles the person to immediate release. (Para 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Re-arrest - Procedure for re-arresting an accused released for constitutional violation - Investigating agency must furnish grounds of arrest, file an application before the Magistrate explaining the necessity and previous lapse, and obtain endorsement from a superior authority. (Para 13, 14)
(C) Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Re-arrest without following the mandated judicial and administrative procedure is illegal and violates fundamental rights. (Para 15)
Issues: Whether the re-arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to non-compliance with the procedure prescribed for re-arresting an accused released for violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
(B) Criminal Procedure - Re-arrest - Procedure for re-arresting an accused released for constitutional violation - Investigating agency must furnish grounds of arrest, file an application before the Magistrate explaining the necessity and previous lapse, and obtain endorsement from a superior authority. (Para 13, 14)
(C) Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Re-arrest without following the mandated judicial and administrative procedure is illegal and violates fundamental rights. (Para 15)
Issues: Whether the re-arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to non-compliance with the procedure prescribed for re-arresting an accused released for violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kartik Kumar, Trilok Chand, Gaurav Sharma
For the Respondents: Amol Sinha, Kshitiz Garg
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kartik Kumar, Trilok Chand, Gaurav Sharma
For the Respondents: Amol Sinha, Kshitiz Garg
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued re-arrest was illegal without following Supreme Court procedure; State conceded procedure was not followed. (Para 10 , 13 )
3. Re-arrest without prior superior authority endorsement and magistrate permission violated constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1). (Para 14 , 15 )
4. Breach of Article 22(1) vitiates arrest; re-arrest requires judicial imprimatur after furnishing grounds and superior authority endorsement. (Para 14 )
5. Petitioner directed to be released forthwith on same bail terms as originally ordered by the JMFC. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. What is the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) regarding grounds of arrest?
Grounds of arrest must be in writing, in a language understood by the accused, and furnished as a matter of course at the earliest. (Para 14 )
7. What procedure must be followed before re-arresting an accused released for breach of Article 22(1)?
Investigating officer must file application before magistrate with reasons and explanation, endorsed by superior authority, after furnishing grounds of arrest. (Para 14 )
8. Can a subsequent chargesheet or cognizance order validate an arrest made in violation of Article 22(1)?
No, subsequent filing of chargesheet and order of cognizance will not validate such an unconstitutional arrest. (Para 14 )
9. What is the consequence of breach of Article 22(1) on the custody of the accused?
Breach or non-compliance entails immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional and illegal. (Para 14 )
10. What administrative action is recommended against the erring police officer who violates Article 22(1)?
Superior authority shall hand over investigation to another officer and direct departmental enquiry; adverse finding entails departmental action with service book entry. (Para 14 )
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 30303/2026 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (CRL.) 3031/2026 & CRL.M.A.30302/2026
2. This Writ Petition has been listed before us on being mentioned before Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent to release the petitioner, who is stated to be in illegal custody in connection with FIR No. 493/2026, Police Station–New Usmanpur, North-East Delhi.
4. It is stated in the petition that on registration of the above FIR, the petitioner was illegally detained on 20.07.2026 and was produced before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (in short, ‘JMFC’), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, only on 23.07.2026.
5. By the Order dated 23.07.2026, the learned JMFC-04 observed that the grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner did not bear any date or time as to when it was handed over to the petitioner or if it was handed over two hours prior to the production of the petitioner, which is the mandate in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra , (2026) 1 SCC 500. There were also no details of the incident, for which the petitioner had been arrested, in the grounds of arrest.
6. In view of the above observations, the appellant was directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
7. The petitioner was, however, re-arrested on 21.08.2026, without following the due procedure as prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra).
8. The appellant challenged his arrest before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC POCSO)-01, North-East District, Karkardooma Court, however, the same was rejected by the learned Court vide Order dated 22.08.2026.
9. By another order of the same date, the petitioner was remanded to police custody for two days.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the re- arrest of the petitioner was without following the due procedure prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the arrest was illegal and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is liable to be released forthwith.
11. Issue notice.
12. Notice is accepted by Mr. Amol Sinha, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
13. The learned ASC for the State, on instructions, affirms that the procedure prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab , 2026 INSC 1022, inasmuch as it prescribes that before making a re-arrest, the concerned Investigating Officer must forward a report to and seek permission of the superior authority as also file an application before the concerned Court seeking its permission to re- arrest the accused and stating the necessity for the same, has not been followed in the present case.
14. In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer if it wishes to re-arrest an accused who is released from the custody for breach of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, by observing as under:
“23. Having discussed the judgments, it would be apposite to sum up the core principles qua Article 22(1). The grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language which is understood by the accused. A copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. An accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of his arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. Any attempt to encroach upon the fundamental rights guara
