NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has clarified that re-arrest of an accused is not barred in law, even if a prior arrest was rendered illegal due to procedural lapses, as long as the defects are subsequently cured.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the ruling while dismissing a batch of petitions filed by several accused persons, who had challenged their re-arrest in an Arms Act case being investigated by Delhi Police’s special cell. They had also assailed a trial court order which had upheld the legality of the subsequent arrest.
“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,” the court observed.
The petitioners had argued that once the trial court had held their initial arrest invalid, any re-arrest under the same FIR could not be legally sustained. They also asserted that fresh material did not exist to justify their re-arrest and that statutory safeguards had still not been followed.
Rejecting these contentions, the court noted that at the time of re-arrest, detailed arrest grounds were furnished to each of the accused, outlining their alleged roles in the organised crime syndicate.
“Therefore, at the time of re-arrest, the mandatory requirements of law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, were prima facie complied with. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the defect which had vitiated the initial arrest was not repeated during the re-arrest,” the bench held. It added that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which bars such a re-arrest.
“To hold otherwise would amount to laying down a precedent which, in the long run, may prove perilous to the administration of criminal justice. 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 must be negative,” the court said.
The court said that allowing such an argument would effectively grant blanket immunity to accused persons from being arrested in future, even in serious offences, merely because of a previous technical defect.