Police Cannot Re-arrest on Their Own After Breaching Article 22; Magistrate's Permission Needed, Supreme Court Holds

The appellant, accused of offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act, was arrested at about 7:54 am on 17 May 2026 and produced before the duty Magistrate at around noon the next day (para 3). He had not been given written grounds of arrest, so the Magistrate held the arrest illegal and released him, while observing that the police could seek custody after supplying the grounds (para 3). A fresh custody application failed because the grounds had still not been supplied (para 3). The High Court then held that the police could not be restrained from re-arresting him, leaving him to pursue the officers for his detention beyond 24 hours (paras 3, 27).

The Court restated the Article 22(1) principles: written grounds of arrest, in a language the accused understands, must be furnished in every case, and a breach vitiates arrest and remand; a later chargesheet does not cure it (para 23). "When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise" (para 23). Mihir Rajesh Shah states the binding law: Sri Darshan was decided, and the arrest in Sonam Raghuvanshi made, before it (para 22). An accused released for such a breach "is not enlarged on bail"; he is freed from unconstitutional detention (para 23). The power to re-arrest "must not be left to the discretion of the very same authority" that violated the Constitution. "It must have the judicial imprimatur" (para 25). The same procedure applies after a breach of Article 22(2) (para 36). Sanjay Dutt and Rakesh Kumar Paul, which permit re-arrest after default bail, were distinguished because here both breaches occurred at the threshold of arrest (paras 34-35).