Here are two sentences with 'being and having' followed by 'after' :
After Being arrested, he was taken to the police station.
(Does it mean 'He was arrested and after that he was taken to the police station?)
After having been arrested, he was taken to the police station.
Does it mean 'After he had been arrested, he was taken to the police station' ?
Are these sentences in present participle clause and perfect participle clause followed by preposition after accordingly ?
From a grammatical point of view, the sentence "Being arrested, he was taken to the police station" is acceptable, since "he" is the subject of "being arrested".
In my view, the question is less "what is grammatically correct?" than "how can I get the reader to understand me quicker and better?".
We need to get a little into semantics: the two words "be" and "arrested" convey an idea of being stationary: if someone is "being arrested", they are not supposed to move. It may sound at first a little strange that despite of being arrested, the person is taken to the prison. So the reader might have to pause a little to work it out: "Oh, yes, 'arrested' here is taken in a legal sense, not physically".
By contrast "after being arrested" (or "after he was arrested") would work faster and better. In that case it would become clear that the person was
This question is both about the meaning of the sentences and their constructions.
The meaning of two example sentences and their construction could be interpreted as follows:
After being arrested, he was taken to the police station.
This sentence implies that he was taken to the police station after his arrest. The time reference between arresting him and taking him to the police station could be short. This sentence is constructed in being+past participle followed by preposition after . It is called present participle clause in passive form. Present participle clause has been used here in the sentence either one action happened at the same time as the action in the main clause or an action happened just after another action . So, The sentence could mean that he was taken to the police station at the same time when he was arrested or he was taken to the police station just after his arrest.
After having been arrested he was taken to the police station.
This sentence implies "After he had been arrested, he was taken to the police station". The time reference between arresting him and taking him to the police station could be long. Because he was arrested at first and after that he was taken to the police station. This sentence is constructed in having+past participle followed by prepostion after forming perfect participle clause. Perfect participle clause has bee used here because the two actions ( arresting and taking to the police station) either didn't follow each other immediately or first action happened over a period of time.
