No bar on re-arrest after procedural defects of initial arrest cured: Delhi

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has said procedural lapses by the police in the first arrest does not hinder a subsequent arrest once legal requirements are fulfilled.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on July 15 held an accused's rearrest if carried out after curing such defects was permissible.

The court, therefore, dismissed a petition filed by four alleged members of an organised crime syndicate.

"In criminal law, procedural safeguards are essential to protect liberty, but they cannot be turned into a shield to defeat lawful investigation into heinous crimes. A lapse by the police in the first arrest does not create a bar against subsequent arrest once the legal requirements are fulfilled," the court said.

Anwar Khan, Hasim Baba, Sameer, and Zoya Khan sought a declaration that their rearrest on June 10 for the murder of one Sunil Jain was "unlawful and unconstitutional".

The petitioners, represented by advocates Anurag Jain, M M Khan, Amit Chadha and Atin Chadha, argued their first arrest was declared "non-est" on May 13 by a special court.

The special court was stated to have relied on the non-supple of written grounds of arrest and barred their rearrest without fresh material.

They alleged the police circumvented court's orders by rearresting them without sufficient basis, violating their rights under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

However, state's additional standing counsel Sanjeev Bhandari and special public prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh argued the earlier release was due to a technical lapse and not for want of incriminating material.

They claimed fresh grounds of arrest were provided to the accused persons during the re-arrest and procedural safeguards were fully complied with.

The judge accepted the state's submission and held the accused couldn't be allowed to derive advantage from procedural lapses previously committed by the investigating officers.

"The liberty of an individual is protected, but not to the extent of frustrating the course of justice in serious criminal cases like those under MCOCA," the judge said.

In the present case, the court said, there were sufficient material against the accused persons having "extensive criminal histories" and their alleged role in a larger crime syndicate was backed by specific evidence.

"The petitioners' initial arrest was declared invalid only on technical grounds. Once procedural irregularities were cured and grounds of arrest were meaningfully furnished, their re-arrest cannot be held illegal," the order said.