Back
Manoj Chaudhary Without Judicial Permission After Article 22 Breach Illegal
Without Judicial Nod Unconstitutional, Rules
The today ordered the of Manoj Chaudhary, holding that his by the police was illegal as it violated the procedure mandated by the following an earlier breach of . A of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj ruled that the without seeking permission from a magistrate and without was unconstitutional, marking a significant reinforcement of in criminal arrests.
From Bail to : A Timeline of Constitutional Violations
The case began when Chaudhary was initially detained on , in connection with FIR No. 493/2026 registered at . He was produced before the , only on . The magistrate noted that the supplied to him bore no date or time of delivery and lacked details of the incident — a clear violation of the mandate in . Chaudhary was accordingly released on a of Rs.10,000 with one .
However, on , the police re-arrested Chaudhary without following the procedure prescribed by the . His challenge before the was rejected on , and he was to for two days. This led to the filing of a before the .
State Concedes Lapses in Following Mandate
The petitioner’s counsel, , argued that the was in flagrant violation of the procedure laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah and recently reaffirmed in . The State’s Additional Standing Counsel, , frankly conceded that the required steps — filing an application before the magistrate with reasons for , obtaining an , and explaining the earlier non-supply of grounds — had not been followed. The investigating officer had neither sought permission from a superior authority nor moved an application before the court.
The Mihir Rajesh Shah Procedure: A Shield Against Arbitrary
The extensively quoted from Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol , where the emphasized that once an accused is released for breach of Article 22(1), the power to cannot rest with the same authority that violated the . The investigating agency must seek by filing an application before the magistrate, stating the reasons for and the necessity for . The application must also include an explanation for the initial failure to furnish and carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.
The court observed that Chaudhary was re-arrested solely because additional offences under the were added to the FIR. This, without following the mandated procedure, rendered the unsustainable.
The Court’s Pivotal Remarks
In its key observation, the bench stated: “In view of the fact that the above procedure prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and which has further been recently affirmed in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (supra) was not followed by the respondent before re-arresting the petitioner and he was re-arrested only on the fact that offences under the had been further added in the FIR against him, the of the petitioner cannot be justified and is found to be illegal and in violation of his .”
Ordered, Merits Unaffected
The court directed that Chaudhary be forthwith released from custody on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the magistrate’s order of . It clarified that it had made no observations on the against him.
The judgment sends a strong message that police cannot circumvent constitutional safeguards by resorting to without . The procedure laid down by the is a mandatory check against , and any deviation will result in the of the accused.
