Accused arrested in a firing case had their arrest declared illegal for delayed supply of grounds of arrest, then were re-arrested the same day. The High Court held the re-arrest valid since grounds of arrest preceded the second remand application by over two hours, and dismissed their habeas corpus writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
::1::
(225) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-1543-2026 (O & M) Reserved on:-09.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement:17.04.2026 Date of Uploading:- 17.04.2026
Vinod alias Binnu and ors.
... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vani Singh, Advocate,for the petitioners.
Ms. Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Parmod, Advocate, for the complainant.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ, order or a direction especially in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to release the petitioners from custody and declare the arrest of the petitioners as illegal with a further prayer that a writ of Mandamus be also issued to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::2::
To the SHO Sahab, Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani, Sir, Request that I am Arvind son of Krishna Kumar resident of Jain Chowk Bhiwani and I work in property business. I also deal in buying and selling of land. It is because of land that I have a rivalry with Vinod alias Binnu, son of Ramesh resident of Jituwala Johad Bhiwani. Vinod alias Binnu shot me in 2024 with the intent to kill me. Case number 189/ 2024 has been registered in connection with the case at the City Police Station Bhiwani. I survived in the incident and I have been holding a grudge against Vinod alias Binnu ever since. Today I went to the Bhiwani Court with my maternal uncle sons Shubham son of Ramesh Kumar resident of Mokhra District Rohtak, because my friend Shubham son of Sawariya resident of Halwas gate Bhiwani, who is imprisoned in the district jail for attempting murder was granted bail today in the Court of Mr D.S. Challia Sessions Judge Bhiwani. I was present in the Bhiwani Court today near the main gate between the Lawyers Chambers. There I met Vinod alias Binnu his associates Sandeep resident of Lohani, Ajay Punjabi resident of Gausian Chowk Bhiwani, Ayush resident of Bhiwani, Shripal resident of Dinod Gate Bhiwani and 8-10 other boys. The abovesaid Vinod alias Binnu threatened me and said that today we will not let you come out of the Court Bhiwani alive you had escaped earlier at the same time I called my brother Ravindra 9354507000 from my phone number 9813442512 and told him about the threat given by Vinod alias Binnu after this at about 11:15/ 11:30 AM I and my aunt's son Shubham reached my car on LIC road outside the premises then suddenly Israel son of Latif Khan, resident of Hindol, Ayush alias Boxer son of Ramesh, resident of street no. 19, Dabar Colony Bhiwani and Jitender son of Vijay resident of Brahma Colony Bhiwani came there whom I already knew Israel, Aayush and Jitendra was holding pistols in their hands Israel, Aayush and Jitendra tried to fire directly at me with the pistols in their hands with the intention of killing me, so I and my aunt's son Shubham got scared and ran back towards the court complex Bhiwani then these 3 alongwith their 4/5 other companions ran behind me with pistols and I heard the sound of gun shots being fired at me, when I was running towards the canteen near the lawyers' bar in the court complex at 11:30 AM Jitender and Aayush suddenly ran in front of Me and fired directly at me with the pistol in their respective hands with the intention of killing me. I got hit and fell
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::3::
down. I got scared and started shouting, meanwhile hearing the gunshots many police personnels came running towards me seeing them Israel, Aayush and Jitendra along with their weapons ran away from the LIC road side of the Court complex towards HUDA Park. The police officials who were following them Israel was wearing a white colour sweater and black jeans and Aayush was wearing a white shirt and blue jeans. Jitender was wearing a black sweater and black colour jeans after this incident I was scared and someone I know lost his temper full today in the Court of Bhiwani Vinod alias Binnu due to conspiracy along with his associates fired bullet on his on his road with the intention of killing me. I am in a dilemma that he had attacked me with the intention of killing me. Strict to strict action be taken against Vinod, Aayush, Jitender and other 8/10 accused who had formed a conspiracy and attacked me with the intention of killing me. SD Arvind applicant.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::4::
from custody. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons were released immediately at about 03:35 p.m. on 04.02.2026.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::5::
and it was stated in the said application that the grounds of arrest had been given two hours earlier which is absolutely incorrect as the grounds of arrest were supplied at about 03:20 p.m. during the hearing of the first remand application. Therefore, once again there has been the violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). As per record, the re-arrest of the accused was at 06:20 p.m. The second application for remand was moved at around 08.00 p.m. Once again, there has been no supply of the grounds of the arrest two hours prior to the remand. She, thus, contends that re-arrest of the petitioners be declared illegal and they be released from custody.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::6::
about 03:35 p.m. and the re-arrest was at about 06:20 p.m., then there has been due compliance of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). They, thus, contend that the present petition is liable to be dismissed, moreso, as the petitioners are serial offenders.
55. It goes without saying that if the above said schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee. On such release, an application for remand or custody, if required, will be moved along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing setting forth the explanation for non-supply thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
56. In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::7::
communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.
In ‘Anwar Khan @ Chacha and others versus The State of NCT
of Delhi 2025 NCDHC 5600’, the Delhi High Court held as under:-
2. The central issue that falls for consideration is whether the rearrest 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.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
8. Eventually, it came to light that the present petitioners - Hasim Baba @ Asim, Sameer @ Baba, Anwar Khan @ Chacha, and Zoya Khan - were the peripheral figures who sat at the helm of the organized crime syndicate itself. Following the revelations regarding their alleged role in the organised crime syndicate, the four petitioners were interrogated inside Tihar Jail with prior permission of the Court. Based on what the investigating agency claimed to be sufficient evidence of their involvement in organised criminal activities, all four were formally arrested in the present case on 12.05.2025. The next day, the police sought seven days of custody remand before the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts.
9. However, notably, the learned ASJ declined the request on 13.05.2025, observing that the due process of law had not been followed during the petitioners' arrest in jail. It was observed that the investigating agency had failed to communicate the gist of the material forming the grounds for arrest to the accused, as
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::8::
legally mandated. Consequently, the Court declared the arrest of all four petitioners as non-est, ordering their release in the present case, while also granting liberty to the State to undertake appropriate legal steps in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.05.2025 is set out below:
"12. The Grounds of Arrest is a six line description which states after name and credential of accused, 'accused is hereby informed that on the basis of sufficient evidence against you under Section 3 & 4 of MCOCA in the present case under various offences, PS Farsh Bazar, investigated by Special Cell, New Delhi, you are hereby arrested in this case'. Thus, essentially, the only reason mentioned is 'on the basis of sufficient evidence against you. In the present matter, another accused has already been arrested and the case file/diary contains Grounds of Arrest of that accused namely Sukhbir Singh. This document (Grounds of Arrest of accused Sukhbir Singh) gives the details of Grounds of Arrest and mentioned live points indicating various aspects on the basis of which the ground of arrest have emerged.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::9::
14.1 It was pointed out by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there are statements of public witnesses including statement under Section 183 of BNSS. Said statements are in fact part of the record, however, same in itself is not sufficient. As per the established position of law noted above, gist of the material on the basis of which the investigating agency believed that Grounds of Arrest existed is to be conveyed but same is amiss in the present matter. Therefore, as sequel to above discussion, it is held that arrest of above four accused is not proper and not in terms of law. Hence, it is held to be non-est. Accused are directed to be released from custody in this case. It is clarified that since the arrest is held to be non-est on technical ground, State has liberty to complete the process as per law.
15. Application disposed of accordingly."
The Controversy of Re-Arrest
10. The investigating agency returned to Court on 15.05.2025, seeking further interrogation and re-arrest of the petitioners, after complying with all procedural safeguards. It was submitted that the earlier order dated 13.05.2025 had not restrained them from proceeding afresh and that the nature of offences, i.e. punishable even with death, clearly necessitated their arrest. The matter was heard in detail, and by order dated 09.006:2025, the learned ASJ permitted the interrogation of the petitioners within jail premises in accordance with the applicable rules. As to the question of re-arrest, the Court carefully clarified that it was not within its legal mandate to grant advance permission for arrest. The Court observed that it is for the investigating agency to decide whether arrest is warranted, and the Court's role to assess the legality of such arrest would arise only once it is effected. The Court observed that any pre-emptive judicial sanction would amount to placing the cart before the horse and would be impermissible under law. The relevant portion of order dated 09.006:2025 reads as under:
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::10::
"6. Having heard contentions of both the parties and perused the record, it emerges that issue in hand before the court is to consider the prayer of State for further interrogation of above named accused persons and prayer to permit re-arrest of all these four persons. As far as, interrogation/questioning of accused persons are concerned, there was no quarrel on behalf of 4. Defence counsel representing the accused persons that investigating agency has right to continue their investigation rather it was argued that investigating agency may continue their investigation and for that, arrest of accused is not required. Otherwise also, to question a person who is suspect or an accused, the investigation may summon that person as many times as is required from the material on record and for proper investigating agency in the case. Even if on any occasion, if the proper procedure is not followed, it does not create a bar that, henceforth, accused cannot be called for questioning/ interrogation. Therefore, as far as the request regarding further interrogation of all the accused persons are concerned, in view of the submissions on behalf of above accused and in the backdrop of position of law on this issue, the investigating agency is well within their right to continue or to do further interrogation of the above four persons. Accused are stated to be in custody in other case. Therefore, it is directed that applicant/investigating agency shall be facilitated by Jail authorities in terms of applicable jail rules for interrogation of accused by applicant/ investigating agency.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::11::
amount to tacit approval of court that material on record is sufficient to justify the arrest of accused on the basis of his involvement in the case. Such an observation on part of court, at this stage, is not warranted and permissibile under law. Therefore, at this stage, this part of application/prayer is not required to be adjudicated upon pre-mature. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Copy dasti. Copy of this order be sent to Jail concerned for informing applicant/ accused accordingly."
11. All four petitioners were rearrested in the present case on 10.006:2025. This time, more detailed and written grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioners. Following their arrest, they were brought to the Patiala House Court and produced before the learned Vacation Judge. An application for seeking 10 days of police custody remand was also filed by the State, which was opposed by the learned defence counsels. Taking cognizance of the circumstances, the learned Vacation Judge, by order dated 11.006:2025, directed the investigating agency to place on record a synopsis of fresh evidence gathered post the earlier judicial order dated 13.05.2025, and to demonstrate the legal permissibility of the petitioners' rearrest. The petitioners were initially remanded to judicial custody till 16.006:2025, and on that date, their custody was further extended, with the matter posted before the learned ASJ for 01.07.2025.
12. Subsequently, after hearing arguments on the legality of the rearrest, the learned ASJ passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, holding that the re-arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 629/2024 was lawful and within the four corners of the applicable legal framework. The relevant observations of the learned ASJ in the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, which have been assailed by the petitioners, are set out below:
"14.1 I have gone through the order dated 09.006:2025. The relevant paragraph in the said order is para no.7. It was emphasized on behalf of accused that the court has observed that it is beyond the scope of the court to permit arrest of accused. However, reading of para no.7 shows
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::12::
that said observation is only in respect of the mandate of law in respect of qua the stage of the case. In other words, the observation has been given in respect of mandate of law on the powers of court for direction for arrest during investigation. It is trite law that court cannot dictate and should not dictate as to which accused should be arrested or when. It is an established position of law that such authority is vested in the investigating agency to decide whether or not accused is to be arrested. It has been clearly held in para no.7 that said issue regarding permission to rearrest need not to be adjudicated as it was premature. Once it is held that an issue is premature, it means that court has not made any observation on the substance of the issue cither in terms of approval of the issue or disapproval of the issue. Hence, the arguments for permission to re-arrest having been rejected as it does not hold water.
17.1 The first test would be regarding the compliance of procedural safeguards incorporated in statutes and brought
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::13::
in by various pronouncements of Hon'ble Constitutional Courts. Once, the investigating agency is able to show that all the safeguards have been observed in compliance, then the investigating agency need to show that material on record is sufficient to indicate prima facie involvement of accused warranting his arrest and need for investigation. In case the prosecution/investigating agency fails to cross the first test, the second stage is not reached and thus, material produced will not be evaluated as such.
17.2 In the present matter also, there has been similar circumstances for observance of mandate of supplying the grounds of arrest in defiance through a formal compliance rather than meaningful supply of grounds of arrest. Thus, vide order dated 13.05.2025, the arrest was declared illegal as in the judgments referred above, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the requirement of supplying meaningful grounds of arrest is part of fundamental rights.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::14::
arrest of petitioner is illegal and contrary to provision of Section 46(4) of erstwhile Cr.PC, however, CBI is not precluded to arrest the petitioner if investigation warrants so, by following the due process of law. This court in its order dated 13.05.2025 has also held that though the arrest of accused is illegal on the basis of ground of arrest having been not supplied, State had the liberty to complete the process as per law.
21.1 One may argue that this provision relates to cancellation of bail before re-arrest of accused. In this regard, suffice it to observe that concept of re-arrest is not completely new to Cr.PC or to the judicial pronouncement as is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel. In the case titled as Mohd. Alim @ Abdul Alim v. State of UP, Crl. Appeal No. 2376/2023, it is, inter-alia, held by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad that:
"68. When the appellants applied for bail, they had no notice of extension of time granted by the Special Court. Moreover, the application was made before the filing of the charge-sheet, hence, the appellants are entitled to default bail. At this stage, we may note here that in the case of Sanjay Dutt (Supra) as well as in the case of Bikramjeet Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court held that grant of default bail does not prevent re-arrest of the appellant on the cogent ground after filing the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the accused can always apply for regular bail. However, as
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::15::
held by Supreme Court in the case of Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 1 SCC 722, re-arrest cannot be made only on the ground of filing a charge-sheet. It all depends on the facts of each case."
"In the instant case while exercising the jurisdiction, apparently under Section 437 of the Code, the Metropolitan Magistrate appears to have completely ignored the basic principles governing the grant of bail. The Magistrate referred to certain facts and the provisions of law which were not, in any way, relevant for the purposes of deciding the application for bail in a case where accused was charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The mere initial grant of anticipatory bail for lesser offence, did not entitle the respondent to insist for regular bail even if he was subsequently found to be involved in the case of murder. Neither Section 437(5) nor Section 439(1) of the Code was attracted. There was no question of cancellation of bail carlier granted to the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 406 IPC. The Magistrate committed a irregularity by holding that "I do not agree with the submission made by the Ld.Prosecutor in as much as if we go by his submissions then the accused would be liable for arrest every time the charge is altered or enhanced at any stage, which is certainly not the spirit of law". With the change of the nature of the offence, the accused becomes dis-entitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. Instead of referring to the grounds which entitled the respondent-accused the grant of bail, the Magistrate adopted a wrong approach to confer him the benefit of liberty on allegedly finding that no grounds were made out for cancellation of bail."
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::16::
in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Constitutional Courts, it can never mean to permit or allow accused to have an advantage of lapse or inefficiency on the part of an officer of prosecuting agency.
23.1 In the case titled as Vicky Bharat Kalyani v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Writ Petition No.5254 of 2024, it was argued that it has been referred to the Larger Bench and therefore, cannot be relied upon. Para no. 66 of said judgment deals with terms of reference to Larger Bench, however, perusal of these questions/points raised in such reference to Larger Bench are in respect of application of Section 50 of erstwhile Cr.PC, whereas, the question and the observation in the earlier paragraph are in respect of the post non-compliance of Section 50 Cr.PC in terms of not providing grounds of arrest to accused.
23.2 It was also argued that the reliance by the prosecution is such which amounts to noting the contentions of government Reader and they do not assume the status of law. However, a clear observation has been made in para no. 58 of the above judgment that any embargo or bar upon re-arrest could be pointed out and the court agreed with the contention that there is no bar for rearrest the person who are released for non-furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing. It is further held that if accused are released on the grounds of not supplying the grounds of arrest leading to violation of provisions of Cr.PC would amount to infringing their constitutional right under Article 21 of Constitution of India, thereafter, if grounds of arrest are supplied to them, they cannot have any grievance. It is further apposite and germane to have reference to para no.57 of the said judgment and same is reproduced hereinunder:
"57. The accused has certain rights, as discussed earlier. Similarly the victims also have their own rights. In cases involving heinous crimes like rape, murder, those under POCSO, MCOCA, NDPS, the victims and even the society are the sufferer. The victims do not have any control over the investigation and the investigating officers' efficiency or inefficiency. Therefore, if an accused is released on the ground of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing if required under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. that would cause serious prejudice to the victims. Such lapse can be attributed to various factors viz. inefficiency, lack of awareness etc. In that case, the consequences would be
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::17::
causing serious prejudice to the victims. In a given case, the investigating agency may have material in their possession that propensity of the accused indicated that he is likely to commit a similar offence, and that would be a serious threat to the security and safety of the potential victims in the offences like rape, under POCSO etc. If an accused is released on that ground then there could be serious threat to the witnesses also. Therefore, there is need to strike a balance between the rights of the victims and the rights of the accused. There is also a possibility of destruction of evidence, threatening of witnesses etc.. Merely imposing conditions in these cases may not suffice. On the other hand, when the bail applications are considered, then looking at the background of the case, the Court would exercise jurisdiction in bail matters taking into account all the factors including merits of the matter; which in the cases of violation of alleged rights of the accused under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. would not be possible for the Court to exercise."
XXXX XXXX XXXX
26. It is, therefore, incorrect to argue that the re-arrest could only be justified on the basis of discovery of new material after 13.05.2025. Accordingly, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the re-arrest was impermissible in the absence of new material is unmerited.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
28. A key issue in the present matter also relates to compliance with the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest, both at the time of the first arrest and upon the subsequent re-arrest of the petitioners.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::18::
29. It is undisputed that during the initial arrest, the petitioners were not provided with detailed written grounds of arrest. This formed the basis for the order dated 13.05.2025, whereby the learned ASJ declared the arrest as non-est, holding that such non-compliance violated the petitioners' fundamental rights and the settled law laid down in decisions such as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2024 INSC 414. That order attained finality, as it was not challenged by the State.
30. However, at the time of the re-arrest on 10.006:2025, this Court finds that detailed grounds of arrest were furnished to each of the petitioners, which have been placed on record before this Court by the State along with the Status Report. These grounds specifically outline the alleged roles of the petitioners in the organised crime syndicate and the specific allegations against them for commission of alleged offences. The extract of grounds of arrest, supplied to one of the petitioner, i.e. petitioner no. 1, is set out below for reference:
Case FIR No. 629/2024 Dated 07.12.2024 under section 103(1)/3(5)/303/318/336/341 BNS & 25/27 Arms Act, 43/66/66(B)/72 IT Act, 3 & 4 MCOC Act PS Farsh Bazar (Investigated by Special Cell) Delhi.
Grounds of Arrest of accused Anwar Khan @ Chacha s/o Jumma Khan Age 52 years r/o H.No. C-35, Welcome, Shahdara, Delhi.
HINDI MATTER
31. Therefore, at the time of re-arrest, the mandatory requirements of law, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were prima facie complied with. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the defect which had vitiated the initial arrest was not repeated during the re-arrest, and the requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest in writing was duly fulfilled. Whether Re-Arrest is Permissible After
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::19::
Declaration of Initial Arrest as Non-Est due to Procedural Irregularity'
32. The essential question that now falls for determination is whether an accused person, whose arrest has previously been declared non-est or illegal on procedural grounds, can be lawfully re-arrested after compliance with the requisite legal formalities.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
34. This Court finds merit in the State's argument. Clearly, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not contain any provision that either expressly prohibits or bars re-arrest of an individual in such circumstances. Moreover, to accept the proposition advanced by the petitioners would be to grant complete immunity to an accused from any future arrest, even in cases involving serious offences, merely because the initial arrest was vitiated by a procedural lapse, however, sufficient incriminating material is found against him, qua the same offence, later.
35. This Court is of the considered view that a lapse or omission on the part of the investigating agency, whether inadvertent or deliberate, cannot and should not result in a blanket immunity to the accused against any future arrest in the same case. To hold otherwise would amount to laying down a precedent which, in the long run, may prove perilous to the administration of criminal justice. It would essentially mean that a serious offender may escape the process of law solely on account of a procedural lapse committed by the investigating agency, even if sufficient material exists justifying his arrest.
36. This issue also raises a more complex question: what happens when the arrest of an accused in a serious offence is declared illegal or non-est purely on technical grounds' Can the State, after rectifying the procedural irregularity, not arrest the
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::20::
said accused again, even if cogent grounds exist' The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the arrest is held to be non-est, the petitioners cannot be re-arrested. This Court is unable to accept such a proposition of law. Let us test this argument in a hypothetical but plausible situation: suppose a police officer, either due to oversight or deliberately, does not communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, and therefore the arrest is declared illegal by the Court, however, at the same time clarifying that such declaration was solely on technical ground and the investigating agency was at liberty to rectify such lapse, it would necessarily lead to a conclusion that there was no immunity or bar in future to arrest the accused qua the same offence. Assume further that the case in question involves grave allegations - say, charges of organized crime, murders, etc. Should the procedural lapse committed by one officer, however serious, be allowed to permanently shield the accused from arrest, even after the defect has been remedied? The answer, in this Court's view, must be in the negative.
37. This question assumes even greater significance in the context of the present case, where the petitioners are not firsttime offenders but individuals with a long list of criminal antecedents. As per the material placed on record, some of the petitioners are involved in as many as 10, 15, or even 26 criminal cases, including offences such as robbery, extortion, attempt to murder, and even murder. The provisions of MCOCA have been invoked in this case, and the prosecution's allegations, at least prima facie point towards the existence of a structured organised criminal syndicate. In such a context, the argument that an illegal or non-est arrest should completely shield the accused persons from future arrest, after complying with all procedural safeguards, cannot be accepted by this Court.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::21::
38. The view that re-arrest is not impermissible in such circumstances has also received judicial recognition. In Kavita Manikikar of Mumbai v. CBI: 2018 SCC Online Bom 1095, the Bombay High Court held that while the initial arrest of the petitioner therein was declared illegal due to violation of Section 46(4) of Cr.P.C. (arrest of a woman after sunset), it was clarified that the police was not barred from affecting a subsequent arrest after rectifying the procedural irregularity. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:
"34. In result, of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and it is held that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the CBI is not precluded to arrest the petitioner if investigation warrants so, by following the due procedure of law."
39. Similarly, in Vicky Bharat Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court clearly observed in paragraph 58 of the judgment that there was no legal bar on re-arresting an accused who had been released earlier due to failure to furnish written grounds of arrest. Though the Division Bench referred six questions, including the issue of re-arrest, to a Larger Bench, it nevertheless recorded a clear and reasoned view in favour of permissibility of re-arrest in paragraph 58, and no contrary opinion was expressed anywhere in the said judgment. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:
"58. In this context, we have seriously considered the arguments advanced by learned Advocate General about re-arrest of the accused who is released with or without bail bonds on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. for not giving the grounds of arrest in writing. In this context, Shri. Bhuta could not point out any embargo or bar upon such rearrest. Shri. Amit Desai, however, submitted that once the accused is released on that ground, re-arrest would violate the protection of the accused under Article 21 of the
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::22::
Constitution of India. The State should not be given a second chance. In this connection,we are inclined to agree with the learned Advocate General that there is no bar in re-arresting the persons who are released for nonfurnishing the grounds of arrest in writing. What the accused are claiming in this situation, is that, they were arrested in violation to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and it infringes their constitutional right under Article 21 but if they are released on that ground and thereafter if the grounds of arrest are supplied to them, they cannot have any grievance. The purpose behind these provisions is to make the accused aware as to why he was arrested and thereafter enable him to defend himself. Leaving aside the issue whether such ground should be communicated orally or should be given in writing for the time being; if on the ground of non-communication they are released and if thereafter the grounds are furnished as per the requirement; then the accused cannot have any grievance, that they were not aware as to why they were arrested. From that point onward, the procedure for remand can be followed and the shortcoming of non-compliance of the provision is wiped out. In that context, reference can be made to the case of Kavita Manikikar. In that case, the Petitioner before the Court was a lady. She was released because she was arrested after sun-set for breach of Section 46(4) of Cr.P.C. Having held her arrest illegal, the Division Bench of this Court went on to observe that considering the seriousness of the allegations, she could be re-arrested after following due procedure of law. The same course can be adopted in the cases where the investigating agency wants to re-arrest the accused if they are released for non-compliance of Section 50 of Cr.P.C."
(Emphasis added)
40. On the other hand, reliance on decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) can be of no help to the petitioners, inasmuch as the said judgment does not decide the question of whether re-arrest is legally permissible after an initial arrest is declared illegal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case expressly noted that it was not necessary to adjudicate on that issue in the given set of facts of that case. Thus, no proposition of law was laid down in the said decision on the
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::23::
permissibility of re-arrest. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:
"22. Another argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that even if the appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article 22, the first respondent can arrest him again. At this stage, it is not necessary to decide the issue."
41. However, this Court's attention was drawn to the judgment of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (supra) by the State wherein while releasing the petitioner on default bail, on the ground that chargesheet had not been filed within a period of 60 days, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified that the release of petitioner shall not prohibit or otherwise prevent the arrest or rearrest of the petitioner on cogent grounds in respect of the subject charge. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:
"49. The petitioner is held entitled to the grant of "default bail" on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. The Trial Judge should release the petitioner on "default bail" on such terms and conditions as may be reasonable. However, we make it clear that this does not prohibit or otherwise prevent the arrest or re-arrest of the petitioner on cogent grounds in respect of the subject charge and upon arrest or re-arrest, the petitioner is entitled to petition for grant of regular bail which application should be considered on its own merit. We also make it clear that this will not impact on the arrest of the petitioner in any other case."
42. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, there is merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the State that when an accused is released or his arrest is declared illegal solely on technical or procedural grounds - such as in the cases of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (supra), Kavita Manikikar v. CBI (supra), or Vicky Bharat Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra (supra) - the State cannot be precluded from taking steps to re-arrest such a person, provided the subsequent arrest is affected strictly in accordance with the procedure established
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::24::
by law. The mere fact that the earlier arrest was vitiated on account of procedural lapses does not, by itself, create any blanket immunity from future arrest, especially where the investigating agency continues to be in possession of material implicating the accused and there has been no adjudication on the merits of such material by the court declaring the arrest illegal.
Conclusion
43. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the initial arrest of the petitioners was declared non-est solely due to non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest and not due to insufficiency of material against them. Further, detailed and sufficient grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioners at the time of re-arrest on 10.006:2025. This Court also concludes that there is no statutory or judicial bar on re-arrest of an accused after curing the procedural defects of a prior illegal arrest; and that the judicial precedents, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court (as discussed above) support the proposition that a subsequent arrest is permissible in law, provided procedural safeguards are followed.
In ‘Manish Kumar versus State of H.P. 2025 NCHHC 41249’,
the Himachal Pradesh High Court held as under:-
7. The aforesaid release of the bail petitioner in the case at hand does not preclude the respondent from re-arresting the accused after the rectifying procedural defects of prior illegal arrest. There is no statutory or judicial bar on re-arrest. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the pronouncement of the Delhi High Court in judgment delivered on 15.7.2025 titled as Anwar Khan @ Chacha and others v. The State of NCT of Delhi. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow for a reference:-
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::25::
36.This issue also raises a more complex question: what happens when the arrest of an accused in a serious offence is declared illegal Digitally Signed or non-est purely on technical grounds? Can the State, after rectifying the procedural irregularity, not arrest the said accused again, even if cogent grounds exist? The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the arrest is held to be nonest, the petitioners cannot be re-arrested. This Court is unable to accept such a proposition of law. Let us test this argument in a hypothetical but plausible situation: suppose a police officer, either due to oversight or deliberately, does not communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, and therefore the arrest is declared illegal by the Court, however, at the same time clarifying that such declaration was solely on technical ground and the investigating agency was at liberty to rectify such lapse, it would necessarily lead to a conclusion that there was no immunity or bar in future to arrest the accused qua the same offence. Assume further that the case in question involves grave allegations - say, charges of organized crime, murders, etc. Should the procedural lapse committed by one officer, however serious, be allowed to permanently shield the accused from arrest, even after the defect has been remedied? The answer, in this Court's view, must be in the negative.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::26::
woman after sunset), it was clarified that the police was not barred from affecting a subsequent arrest after rectifying the procedural irregularity. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:
"34. In result, of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and it is held that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Proce-dure. However, the CBI is not precluded to arrest the petitioner if investigation warrants so, by following the due procedure of law."
"58. In this context, we have seriously considered the arguments advanced by learned Advocate General about re-arrest of the accused who is released with or without bail bonds on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. for not giving the grounds of arrest in writing. In this context, Shri. Bhuta could not point out any embargo or bar upon such rearrest. Shri. Amit Desai, however, submitted that once the accused is released on that ground, rearrest would violate the protection of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State should not be given a second chance. In this connection, we are inclined to agree with the learned Advocate General that there is no bar in rearresting the persons who are released for nonfurnishing the grounds of arrest in writing. What the accused are claiming in this situation, is that, they were arrested in violation to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and it infringes their constitutional right
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::27::
under Article 21 but if they are released on that ground and thereafter if the grounds of arrest are supplied to them, they cannot have any grievance. The purpose behind these provisions is to make the accused aware as to why he was arrested and thereafter enable him to defend himself. Leaving aside the issue whether such ground should be communicated orally or should be given in writing for the time being; if on the ground of noncommunication they are released and if thereafter the grounds are furnished as per the requirement; then the accused cannot have any grievance, that they were not aware as to why they were arrested. From that point onward, the procedure for remand can be followed and the shortcoming of noncompliance of the provision is wiped out. In that context, reference can be made to the case of Kavita Manikikar. In that case, the Petitioner before the Court was a lady. She was released because she was Digitally Signed arrested after sun-set for breach of Section 46(4) of Cr.P.C. Having held her arrest illegal, the Division Bench of this Court went on to observe that considering the seriousness of the allegations, she could be re-arrested after following due procedure of law. The same course can be adopted in the cases where the investigating agency wants to re-arrest the accused if they are released for non-compliance of Section 50 of Cr.P.C."
(Emphasis added)
"22. Another argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that even if the appellant is released on the grounds of violating Article 22, the first respondent can arrest him again. At this stage, it is not necessary to decide the issue."
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::28::
"49. The petitioner is held entitled to the grant of "default bail"on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. The Trial Judge should release the petitioner on "default bail" on such terms and conditions as may be reasonable. However, we make it clear that this does not prohibit or otherwise prevent the arrest or re-arrest of the petitioner on cogent grounds in respect of the subject charge and upon arrest or re-arrest, the petitioner is entitled to petition for grant of regular bail which application should be considered on its own merit. We also make it clear that this will not impact on the arrest of the petitioner in any other case."
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::29::
furnished to the petitioners at the time of re-arrest on 10.006:2025. This Court also concludes that there is no statutory or judicial bar on re-arrest of an accused after curing the procedural defects of a prior illegal arrest; and that the judicial precedents, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court (as discussed above) support the proposition that a subsequent arrest is permissible in law, provided procedural safeguards are followed.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::30::
of the petitioners is at 06:20 p.m. as per the arrest memos and they were produced for police remand later between 08:00 to 08:15 p.m. Therefore, it is apparent that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused more than two hours before the second application for police remand.
Further, there is no requirement in law that the grounds of arrest must be supplied prior to each arrest in the same FIR. Admittedly, the same were provided when the accused were produced for police remand first time between 03:20 p.m. and 03:35 p.m. When they were subsequently arrested at 06:20 p.m. and produced for police remand later that evening there was no requirement of the re-supply of the grounds of arrest.
12. That as per the record of concerned police station, the petitioner Vinod @ Binnu is also involved as accused in the following cases also-
a. FIR No. 530 dated 17.08.2017, under Sections 323, 506, 341, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act, P.S. City Bhiwani, in which, he has been convicted on 04.09.2019.
b. FIR No. 520 dated 27.08.2020, under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
c. FIR No. 692 dated 22.12.2021, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506, 307 IPC & Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
::31::
d. FIR No. 651 dated 13.11.2022, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
e. FIR No. 299 dated 19.05.2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
f. FIR No. 318 dated 27.05.2022, under Sections 147. 149. 323. 506, 379 IPC & SC/ST Act, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
g. FIR No. 485 dated 27.09.2023, under Sections 323, 506, 341. 365, 34 IPC, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
h. FIR No. 189 dated 29.04.2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,452, 506 IPC & Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
13. That as per the record of concerned police station, the petitioner Aman is also involved as accused in the following cases also-
a. FIR No. 606 dated 03.10.2023, under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
b. FIR No. 558 dated 09.09.2023, under Sections 307, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. City Bhiwani, which is pending adjudication.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE
April 17, 2026 sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes
SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.04.17 06:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the re-arrest of accused whose earlier arrest was declared illegal for non-supply of grounds of arrest is lawful.
Whether grounds of arrest were supplied two hours before production before the Magistrate for police remand.
Whether grounds of arrest must be re-supplied on each subsequent arrest within the same FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vihaan Kumar v. State of HaryanaReferred¶3
Vihaan Kumar versus The State of Haryana and another 2025 AIR Supreme Court 1388 · Who else cites this
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶12
Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra and another 2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554 · Who else cites this
Anwar Khan @ Chacha v. State of NCT of DelhiRelied on¶12
Anwar Khan @ Chacha and others versus The State of NCT of Delhi 2025 NCDHC 5600
Manish Kumar v. State of H.P.Relied on¶12
Manish Kumar versus State of H.P. 2025 NCHHC 41249
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vinod alias Binnu
Deepanshu alias Panu
Aman son of Vinod Kumar
State of Haryana
Jasjit Singh Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
