No Legal Bar on Re-Arrest If Procedural Lapses Are Cured: Delhi HC
"This Court also concludes that there is no statutory or judicial bar on the re-arrest of an accused after curing the procedural defects of a prior illegal arrest," the Court said;
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot claim blanket immunity from re-arrest merely because the initial arrest was found vitiated on procedural grounds.
A bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while passing the order, observed, “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. Judicial precedents, including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, support the proposition that a subsequent arrest is permissible in law, provided procedural safeguards are followed.”
The Court was hearing a plea filed by four individuals, alleged to be part of an organised crime syndicate, challenging their re-arrest on June 10, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 629/2024 registered after the murder of Sunil Jain. The accused were earlier arrested in the same case, but their arrest was declared non-est due to procedural lapses, as the police's failure to provide written grounds of arrest.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the second arrest was arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, they contended that once an arrest is held invalid for breaching procedural safeguards, a fresh arrest in the same FIR is impermissible.
On the other hand, the State argued that once procedural irregularities like failure to furnish written grounds are cured, there is no legal bar to re-arrest. It submitted that in this case, the defects had been rectified and detailed grounds of arrest were served.
Finding merit in the State's argument, the Court held,“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.”
While rejecting the petitioners’ argument, the Court said that accepting such a contention would mean that an accused, even in serious cases, could escape future arrest merely because the earlier one was vitiated on procedural grounds.
“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. That would lay down a precedent perilous to the administration of criminal justice,” the Could held
The judge also clarified that the observations made in the judgment are confined solely to the present petition and will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI