Hashim baba re-arrest valid if lapses were corrected: Delhi HC

Subsequently, on June 10, they were re-arrested after police provided detailed, written grounds of arrest specifying their alleged roles in an organised crime syndicate

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused can be re-arrested even if a previous arrest was declared illegal due to procedural lapses, affirming the legality of Delhi Police’s re-arrest of gangster Hashim Baba, his wife Zoya Khan and two others in a murder case.

Justice Sharma agreed, ruling that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against the need to ensure public safety and the rule of law. (Shutterstock)

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivering the verdict on Tuesday, held that procedural lapses do not grant blanket immunity from future arrests, particularly when investigative agencies possess material implicating the accused.

“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,” the court said in a 34-page ruling.

The judgment came in response to a plea filed by four people — Baba, his wife Khan, and two others — who challenged their re-arrest by Delhi Police’s Special Cell on June 10. The four were initially arrested on May 12 after being interrogated in Tihar Jail, but a city court declared the arrest illegal the next day, citing the police’s failure to communicate the grounds of arrest.

Subsequently, on June 10, they were re-arrested after police provided detailed, written grounds of arrest specifying their alleged roles in an organised crime syndicate. A trial court upheld the re-arrest on July 4, prompting the accused to move the high court.

In their plea, the accused argued that their re-arrest was arbitrary, impermissible, and a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Delhi Police, represented by additional public prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, countered that there is no legal or constitutional prohibition against re-arrest following the correction of procedural defects.

Justice Sharma agreed, ruling that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against the need to ensure public safety and the rule of law.

“An unintentional or deliberate lapse by the investigating agency cannot justify granting blanket immunity from arrest. It would essentially mean that a serious offender may escape the process of law solely on account of a procedural lapse, even if sufficient material exists justifying the arrest,” the court observed.

The judge further noted that the trial court had declared the initial arrest illegal solely because of the failure to provide written grounds — not due to any lack of substantive evidence.

“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,” she said.