The Supreme Court has held that the 24-hour constitutional period for producing an accused before a Magistrate begins from the moment their liberty is curtailed through actual detention, and not from the time the investigating agency formally records the arrest.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment while allowing appeals filed by four persons challenging the Tripura High Court’s decision denying them bail in an NDPS case involving the alleged seizure of 11.03 kg of methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as yaba. The Court held that the distinction between detention and formal arrest cannot be used to exclude the period of pre-arrest custody from the constitutional deadline.
The appellants were detained on September 29, 2025, at around 2 PM during search and seizure proceedings but were formally shown as arrested only at 11 AM on September 30. They were produced before the Magistrate at 4:45 PM that day, beyond 24 hours from the time their liberty had initially been curtailed.
The Court held that Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of actual detention, excluding only the time necessary for the journey to the Magistrate’s court. It ruled that the period spent in inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before formal arrest cannot be excluded while calculating the deadline.
The Bench also disapproved of the contrary views taken by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattnayak v. Union of India, 2025, the Kerala High Court in Arun K. Thomas v. Narcotic Control Bureau and the Madras High Court in Kannan v. State. It approved the approach adopted by the Kerala High Court in Biswajith Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau, which held that the constitutional clock begins when a person’s liberty is effectively curtailed.
The Court further held that detention must remain reasonable even within the constitutional 24-hour period under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Magistrates must record the actual date and time of detention and independently examine compliance with Article 22(2). They may decline remand if the period of detention is unreasonable.
Finding that the appellants had remained in custody for about 18 hours without judicial oversight after the search and seizure proceedings, the Court held that their detention violated Article 22(2). It set aside the Tripura High Court’s judgment and directed their immediate release.
The Bench also clarified that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot override fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.