Clarifying detention and arrest and providing succour, the Supreme Court, in a significant judgment on Thursday, ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins when he or she is detained, not when formally arrested.
The court also observed that custodial violence is one of the worst forms of human rights violations and unfortunately takes place during detention.
Holding that there can be no artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ for Article 22(2) of the Constitution, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said any interpretation allowing the police to exclude the period of pre-arrest detention would be contrary to the constitutional mandate.
“The prescription of 24 hours would commence the moment a person is detained by the arresting authority suspecting him to have committed an offence, when his liberty is effectively curtailed. To that extent, the words appearing in clause (2) of Article 22, ie ‘arrested’ and ‘detained’, are synonymous.
“Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ would dilute or negate the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution under clause (2) of Article 22. Such an endeavour should be avoided,” the bench said. The view that 24 hours begin only from the formal arrest is contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 22(2) and Section 56 of the BNSS, the bench added.
The top court also referred to custodial violence during investigations. It said it was “the worst violations of human rights” which take place during investigation when the police, with a view to extract information or confession, resort to third-degree methods.
“The endeavour of this court has always been to eliminate custodial violence, which unfortunately takes place when a person is under detention and not shown as formally arrested, in the process delaying production before the magistrate. Custodial violence is an unfortunate reality of our country and is judicially acknowledged.”
The judgment came in an appeal by three accused persons who had challenged the denial of their bail plea by the Tripura High Court in connection with a case registered under various provisions of the NDPS Act. In this case, the accused were taken into custody around 2.30 pm on September 29, 2025, when the investigating agency allegedly recovered 11.03 kg of methamphetamine tablets from them.
The court noted that their arrest was recorded only at 11:15 am on September 30, 2025, and they were brought before a magistrate at 4.45 pm on September 30, more than 24 hours after their initial detention.
The bench noted that the investigating agency had not explained the 18-hour gap between the conclusion of the search and seizure and the formal arrest. “No explanation has been given for this delay of 18 hours. 18 hours in custody without judicial oversight is a long period, with misuse and abuse of authority a clear possibility. Such a period certainly cannot be construed to be a reasonable period within the meaning of Section 58 BNSS (Section 57 CrPC),” the bench said. The verdict said that the only period that can be excluded while computing the 24-hour deadline is the time reasonably required to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court. The time spent on inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before formal arrest cannot be excluded, it added.
Article 22(2) provides that every person who is arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court.