No Need to Re-Supply Grounds of Arrest on Re-Arrest in Same FIR; Procedural Compliance Once Suffices: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Vinod @ Binnu & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 17 April 2026

Citation: CRWP-1543-2026

Bench: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that re-arrest of an accused is legally permissible even after the initial arrest is declared illegal, provided the procedural defect particularly non-supply of grounds of arrest is cured and statutory safeguards are complied with. The Court further held that there is no requirement to re-supply grounds of arrest upon re-arrest in the same FIR if they were already furnished in compliance with law prior to remand proceedings.

Summary: The petitioners sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus challenging their re-arrest as illegal after their initial arrest had been declared unlawful due to non-compliance with the mandate of supplying written grounds of arrest.

The case arose out of an FIR involving serious allegations of attempted murder and firing within court premises. The petitioners were initially arrested and produced before the Magistrate, where their arrest was declared illegal for failure to comply with the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah. They were ordered to be released.

Subsequently, the police sought and effected re-arrest of the petitioners on the same day. The petitioners contended that this re-arrest was illegal on two grounds: first, that they were never actually released despite the earlier judicial order; and second, that the mandatory requirement of supplying written grounds of arrest at least two hours prior to remand was again violated.

The State countered by arguing that the grounds of arrest had in fact been supplied during the earlier remand proceedings and that the timing between such supply and subsequent remand after re-arrest satisfied the two-hour requirement.

The Court examined the timeline closely and found that the grounds of arrest had been supplied between approximately 03:20 p.m. and 03:35 p.m., while the re-arrest took place at 06:20 p.m., followed by production before the Magistrate at around 08:00 p.m. Thus, the statutory requirement stood fulfilled.

The Court also addressed the broader legal issue of whether re-arrest is permissible after an earlier arrest is declared illegal. Relying on judicial precedents, it held that there is no statutory or constitutional bar on re-arrest after curing procedural defects. A contrary interpretation would unjustifiably grant immunity to accused persons due to mere technical lapses.

Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the re-arrest of the petitioners was lawful and in compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated by law. It concluded that the earlier defect of non-supply of grounds of arrest had been cured, and the requirement of furnishing such grounds at least two hours prior to remand stood satisfied. The Court further emphasized that procedural safeguards are meant to protect liberty but cannot be used as a shield to defeat substantive justice, especially in cases involving grave allegations.