NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional mandate requiring an arrested person to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours begins when their liberty is effectively curtailed through detention, and not when the investigating agency formally records the arrest.
A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar ruled that Article 22(2) of the Constitution does not permit an informal buffer period during which a person can be kept in custody for interrogation without triggering the 24-hour deadline for production before a magistrate.
The court observed that drawing an artificial distinction between detention before formal arrest and the period following it would dilute fundamental protections against custodial excesses.
The bench held that the terms "arrested" and "detained" under Article 22(2) must be read together. It said the 24-hour period begins when a person's liberty is effectively curtailed by the investigating agency on suspicion of an offence. The only exclusion permitted under the provision is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court.
The court ruled that detention beyond 24 hours without production before a magistrate violates Article 22(2) and renders continued custody illegal and unconstitutional.
The ruling also addressed the statutory safeguards under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which prohibits unreasonable detention before an arrested person is produced before a magistrate. The judges said magistrates must ascertain the precise time at which an accused was initially taken into custody rather than relying solely on the arrest records submitted by investigating agencies. They must also examine whether the period of detention was reasonable and refuse remand where the statutory or constitutional requirements have been violated.
The bench held that statutory restrictions on bail cannot justify continued detention when constitutional safeguards have been breached. It also disapproved of earlier contrary interpretations by the Orissa, Madras and Kerala High Courts.
The judgment came in the case of Sujit Das v. Union of India, arising from the alleged seizure of 11.03 kg of methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as yaba, in Tripura.
The four appellants were detained by a search team at 2 pm on September 29, 2025, during a search and seizure operation. However, they were formally shown as arrested only at 11 am the following day. The court noted that there was an unexplained gap of 18 hours between the conclusion of the search and seizure procedure and the formal arrest.
The appellants were subsequently produced before a judicial magistrate at 4.45 pm on September 30, nearly three hours after the 24-hour deadline calculated from their initial detention had expired.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants should have been produced before the magistrate by 2 pm on September 30. It ordered their immediate release, ruling that their continued detention beyond the constitutional deadline was illegal.
The bench also held that the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot override the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (with inputs from media organisations)