The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional requirement of producing an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours begins from the moment the person’s liberty is effectively curtailed, and not from the time the police formally records the arrest.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled that any attempt to create a distinction between detention and formal arrest to exclude the period of prior custody from the 24-hour limit under Article 22(2) of the Constitution is constitutionally impermissible.
The Court clarified that the time spent in police custody for inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before the formal arrest cannot be excluded while calculating the constitutionally prescribed period. The only permissible exclusion is the time reasonably required to transport the arrested person from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.
The Bench observed that Article 22(2) does not permit the authorities to postpone the commencement of the 24-hour period by delaying the formal recording of an arrest. It further held that the expressions ‘arrested’ and ‘detained in custody’, as used in the constitutional provision, must be understood jointly, since the Constitution does not envisage detention in custody divorced from arrest.
Disapproving the proposition that a brief period of investigative detention would not amount to arrest, the Court emphasised that a fundamental right cannot be temporarily suspended merely because the police characterise the period of custody as preliminary inquiry or investigation.
The judgment arose from appeals filed by four accused persons challenging the Tripura High Court’s refusal to grant them bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The accused were detained on September 29, 2025, at around 2 PM during a search and seizure operation. However, their formal arrest was recorded only at 11 AM the following day, September 30.
The Supreme Court held that the 24-hour period had to be calculated from 2 PM on September 29, when their liberty was first curtailed. Consequently, they ought to have been produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of that point.
The Court noted that the accused had remained in detention for approximately 18 hours without judicial oversight before their formal arrest was recorded. Holding that this violated the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2), the Bench directed their immediate release.
The Bench also disagreed with the approach adopted by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattanaik, the Madras High Court in Kannan and the Kerala High Court in Arun K Thomas, which had permitted the period of detention preceding formal arrest to be excluded while computing the 24-hour constitutional deadline.
It held that these decisions did not correctly interpret Article 22(2). On the other hand, the Court approved the view taken by the Kerala High Court in Biswajith Mandal, which recognised that the constitutional clock begins ticking when a person’s freedom is actually curtailed.
The Court also underlined the importance of judicial supervision over police custody, particularly in view of instances of custodial violence. It observed that allowing investigating agencies to draw an artificial distinction between detention and arrest would raise serious questions about who determines the permissible duration of such preliminary detention.
In its conclusions, the Bench held that the 24-hour period must be reckoned from the actual date and time when the person’s liberty is curtailed. If the person is not produced before the Magistrate within that period, the individual must be released forthwith.
The Court further clarified that even within the constitutionally permitted 24-hour period, detention must not exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case, as contemplated under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
It directed Magistrates to specifically record the actual date and time of detention when an accused is produced before them and independently examine whether the constitutional deadline has been adhered to. In cases of violation, the Magistrate must order immediate release.
Magistrates have also been tasked with examining whether the duration of detention, even where it falls within the 24-hour limit, was reasonable in the circumstances. If the detention is found to have exceeded a reasonable period, the Magistrate may decline to authorise remand.
The Tripura High Court had earlier rejected the accused persons’ bail plea in connection with the seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets, holding that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would have to be satisfied before bail could be granted in a case involving a commercial quantity of contraband.
The High Court had also rejected their contention regarding non-compliance with the arrest procedure under the BNSS, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, which held that prolonged incarceration by itself cannot override the statutory restrictions governing bail under the NDPS Act.
Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, assisted by Advocate Ali Asghar Rahim, appeared for the appellants.
Case: Sujit Das v. Union of India
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 12451–12453 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar
The post 24-Hour deadline for producing accused before Magistrate begins from detention, not formal arrest: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.