Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Alias Binnu And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 April, 2026
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
::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.
2. The brief facts as emanating from the pleadings are that an FIR
No.0021 dated 03.02.2026 under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(3), 3(5), 351(3),
61 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Civil
Lines, Bhiwani, came to be registered at the instance of Arvind son of
Krishan Kumar and reads as under:-
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 fellSUKHPREET 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.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, Vinod alias Binnu-
petitioner No.1, Aman son of Vinod Kumar-petitioner No.3, Deepanshu alias
Panu-petitioner No.2 and Kartik alias Sunny came to be arrested on
03.02.2026 i.e. on the date of the occurrence at different times. The arrested
accused were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on 04.02.2026 at about
03:30 p.m. alongwith an application for 05 days police remand. The scanning
timing of the application for remand is 03:22 p.m. on 04.02.2026. During the
course of the hearing of the remand application, the grounds of arrest were
supplied to the accused. However, in view of the violation of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Vihaan Kumar versus The State of Haryana
and another 2025 AIR Supreme Court 1388 and Mihir Rajesh Shah versus
State of Maharashtra and another 2025 AIR Supreme Court 5554′, the
Court declared the arrest of the accused as illegal and ordered their release
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.
4. An application for permission to re-arrest of the above accused
was filed between 03:50 p.m. to 04:00 p.m.. There was an averment in the
said application that the grounds of arrest had been supplied two hours earlier.
Based on the said application, the same Court that directed the release of the
accused passed an order granting permission for their re-arrest.
5. Thereafter, as per the prosecution case, the accused were arrested
in the parking area of the District Court Complex, Bhiwani at about 06:20
p.m. and their families were also informed regarding their re-arrest.
6. All the accused persons were produced before the Duty
Magistrate at about 08.00 p.m. to 08.15 p.m. alongwith an application for 05
days police remand.
7. The present petition has been filed seeking declaration of their
re-arrest as illegal and their consequential release from custody.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the accused
after being ordered to be released from custody were never, in fact, actually
released, though, they have been shown to have been released. Therefore,
there has been flagrant violation of the first order of the Magistrate ordering
their release from custody. She contends that as per the record, the scanning
of the first remand application took place at about 03:22 p.m. The grounds of
arrest were given during the course of hearing of the first remand application
which was dismissed and the arrest was declared illegal. The application
seeking permission to re-arrest was moved between 03:50 p.m. to 04:00 p.m.
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.
9. The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the
complainant, on the other hand, contend that the grounds of arrest were
admittedly supplied at about 03:20 p.m. or so or during the course of hearing
of the first application for police remand when the arrest of the petitioners
was declared illegal. Merely because the contents of the application seeking
permission to re-arrest contains an incorrect averment to the extent that it
states that the grounds of arrest were supplied two hours earlier, though, the
application seeking permission to arrest itself was moved between 03:50 p.m.
to 04:00 p.m. would have little relevance because as per the record, the
grounds of arrest were supplied at about 03.20 p.m. during the hearing of the
application for the first police remand and the re-arrest of the petitioners is
admittedly at 06:20 p.m. as per record after which they were produced before
the Court at about 08.00 p.m. Thus, if the grounds of arrest were supplied
anytime between 03:20 p.m. and 03:30 p.m., the arrest was declared illegal at
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.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Before proceeding further, the relevant judgment on the subject
at hand may be adverted to.
12. In ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra and
another 2025 AIR’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
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 beSUKHPREET 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 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.
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.
13. In the case titled as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT
of Delhi) in Crl. Appeal D.No. 42896/2023, Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, inter-alia, has held that it has been
the consistent view of this court (Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India) that grounds on which the liberty of citizen is
curtailed must be supplied in writing so as to enable him to
seek remedial measures against the deprivation of liberty.
It is also held that non-compliance of this constitutional
requirement and statutory mandate would lead to custody
or detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.
14. Adverting to the facts of this case as noted above, that
Grounds of Arrest mentioned only on the basis of
sufficient evidences which a generic term and does not
enable accused to present his case or put up his defence.
Whenever a requirement is laid down by law especially the
condition, purpose of which is to redeem the promise
which Constitution of India makes regarding upholding
Fundamental Rights of Citizens/Persons, said condition
cannot be reduced to just an empty formality which is
observed as moonshine rather than in substance.
Permitting this would amount to licensing honoring of law
in letter only without respect for spirit and purpose of law.
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.
7. As far as, permission to re-arrest is concerned, it is
beyond the scope of mandate of law for court that during
investigation, any observation be given by court before
arrest of accused that if or not arrest of accused is required.
It is for the investigating agency to decide in terms of
applicable law that if or not any accused is to be arrested.
The role of court to evaluate the said arrest will begin once
the arrest is effected. Needless to say that arrest is to be
evaluated from two dimensions. Firstly, on the basis of
material on record which shows that their exists sufficient
and reasonable material showing involvement of accused.
Secondly, it is the duty of court to ensure that. procedural
safeguards laid down by statues as well as brought in by
judicial interpretation in various pronouncement of
Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
are observed in the letter and spirit. To make an
observation in respect of arrest or re-arrest in advance
would amount to putting the cart before the horse and willSUKHPREET 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 re-
arrest 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.
15. It was also argued that prosecution has not complied
with the direction issued by the order dated 11.006:2025
but by filing the progress of the investigation, the
compliance has been made. It was argued on behalf of
prosecution that accused being sent in judicial custody in
two occasions and the said remand in judicial custody
having been not opposed amounts to approval of the
accused by the court cannot be accepted as the arguments
raised on behalf of accused by Ld. Defence Counsel that
the issue of legality of arrest being still pending, the
direction for keeping the accused in custody till disposal of
the issue does not amount to remand of JC after
application of mind on the facts of the case has force.
16. The major thrust of the argument of Ld. Defence
Counsel is that there is no legal basis for re-arrest of the
accused and if such rearrest is allowed, it will amount to
rendering the orders of the Constitutional Courts being
infractuous as the prosecution/ investigating agency will
attempt to wipe out the illegalities by making good of the
lapses committed by them.
17. Whenever a person is arrested as an accused in a case
and is produced before the court, before remanding the
accused in custody of any kind i.e. police custody or
judicial custody, court must ask prosecution to cross the
twin test in respect of legality of arrest.
17.1 The first test would be regarding the compliance of
procedural safeguards incorporated in statutes and broughtSUKHPREET 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.
18. It was also argued on behalf of accused that there is
noncompliance of Article 22 and Section 50 of erstwhile
Cr.PC. Article 22 of Constitution of India requires supply
of grounds of arrest to the arrestee and Section 50 of Cr.PC
goes a step further whereby it is required that the ground
of arrest are to be supplied ‘forthwith’.
19. Chapter 5 of the erstwhile Cr.PC incorporates the
provision in respect of arrest of person. Section 46 of
erstwhile Cr.PC stipulates as to how the arrest is to be
made. Necessary corollary is that this provision
incorporates procedural safeguards in respect of the
manner in which arrest is to be made. Article 21 of
Constitution of India requires that life and liberty of a
person shall not be curtailed without procedure established
by law. Therefore, if the procedure established by law in
the above noted provisions are not followed, it will amount
to violtion of fundamental rights and consequently, arrest
shall stands vitiated.
20. In this regard, it will be apposite to refer to judgment
of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case titled
as Kavita Manikikar v. CBI Writ Petition No. 1142/2018.
In the said matter, a female was arrested in violation of
provision of Section 46(4) of erstwhile Cr.PC. Hon’ble
High Court of Mumbai had declared the said arrest to be
illegal and in utter violation of provisions contained in
Section 46(4) of erstwhile Cr.PC. It was further held that
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. It was argued on behalf of accused that ‘what is the law
in this regard on the basis of which the re-arrest can be
made. The tenor of argument indicated that there is no
provision in the statute regarding re-arrest of accused.
However, in the Chapter on Arrest of Person, Section 43(2)
Cr.PC incorporates the provision ‘if a person is arrested in
terms of Section 43(1) and if there are reason to believe
that such person comes under the provisions of Section 41,
a police officer shall re-arrest him’. Similarly, Section
437(5) Cr.PC, which is part of the Chapter on Bail,
incorporates a provision stipulating that ‘any court which
has released a person on bail under sub-section (1), or
subsection(2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do,
direct that such person be arrested and commit him to
custody’. Further, Section 439(2) Cr.PC provides that ‘a
High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person
who has been released on bail under this Chapter be
arrested and commit him to custody’.
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, asSUKHPREET 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.”
22. Further, in the case titled as Prahald Singh Bhati v.
NCT of Delhi, Appeal (crl.) 324 of 2001, it has been held
as under:
“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.”
23. It was also argued on behalf of accused that if after
declaring the arrest of the accused persons as illegal, there
subsequent arrest is approved, it will amount to rendering
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Constitutional Courts as
infractuous. This argument cannot be accepted for the
reason that the purpose of procedural safeguards
incorporated in statutes are required to be strictly observed
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 beSUKHPREET 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.”
24. The purpose behind the procedural safeguards and
direction of Hon’ble Constitutional Courts to ensure that
Grounds of Arrest to be provided to accused in writing is
to ensure that accused is being clearly informed as to why
he/she has been arrested and also to ensure that accused
are in position to defend themselves since very beginning.
The purpose of such safeguard can never been to let an
accused go scot free for procedural lapses. It is trite law
that procedure is handmaid of justice and the contention of
the prosecution and Ld. Defence Counsel are required to
be evaluated in this background.”
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 first-
time 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 Proce-
dure. 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 re-
arrest. 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 non-
furnishing 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 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
first-time 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 Digitally Signed 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.
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
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.”
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 Digitally
Signed 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 re-
arrest. 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 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 non-
furnishing 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 rightSUKHPREET 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 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
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)
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 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.”
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.04.17 06:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh
::28::
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
Digitally Signed 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 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.
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
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.
13. As per settled law as laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra),
‘Anwar Khan @ Chacha (supra) and Manish Kumar (supra), the grounds
of arrest must be supplied to an accused in writing at least two hours prior to
him being presented before the Magistrate for his police remand. Further, re-
arrest of the accused is permissible after due compliance of the law laid down
in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), if the facts so warrant.
14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, as per the admitted
position available by way of documentary evidence, the application for the
first police remand was scanned at about 03:22 p.m. and the grounds of arrest
were supplied to the accused during the hearing of the first application when
the arrest was declared illegal. As per the prosecution case, the arrest of the
petitioners was declared illegal at about 03:35 p.m and they were ordered to
be released from custody. As per the prosecution case, they were released
from custody. Thereafter, an application was moved for their re-arrest.
Apparently, the averment in the application that two hours have elapsed since
the time the grounds of arrest were supplied is incorrect in view of the fact
that the application for re-arrest was moved between 03:50 p.m. and 04:00
p.m. and the grounds were supplied sometime between 03:20 p.m. and 03:35
p.m. However, the same would have little relevance as the subsequent arrest
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.
15. It would not be out of place to mention here that the allegations
levelled against the petitioners are grave inasmuch as they have resorted to
firing in the Court premises. As per the affidavit of Mahesh Kumar, HPS,
Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Bhiwani, Haryana, dated 19.02.2026,
petitioner No.1-Vinod alias Binnu and petitioner No.3-Aman are both serial
offenders. The relevant extract of the affidavit showing their antecedents is as
under:-
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.
16. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no
merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.
17. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(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
[ad_1]
Source link
