New Delhi, Nov 5 (PTI) In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment he is detained and not from the time the police formally makes the arrest.
Holding that there can be no artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ for the purpose of 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 time period 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 i.e. ‘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 and said it was “worst violations of human rights” which take place during investigation when the police with a view to extract information or confession resorts to third degree methods.
“The endeavour of this court has always been to eliminate custodial violence which unfortunately takes place during the time 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 apex court’s judgement 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 were brought before a magistrate at 4.45 pm on September 30, more than 24 hours after they were first detained.
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.
The top court disapproved of the views taken by the Orissa High Court in the Aryaman Pattanaik case, the Madras High Court in the Kannan case and the Kerala High Court in the Arun K Thomas case, which had permitted the period of detention before formal arrest to be excluded while calculating the 24-hour deadline.
The bench said that no period can be excluded while computing the deadline, except the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court.
“In the event such detention continues beyond 24 hours, before the person is produced before the magistrate, he shall be forthwith released from custody,” it said.
The detaining authority must ensure that detention does not exceed a reasonable period, even within the constitutional 24-hour limit, it added.
The judicial magistrates must record the actual date and time of detention and independently examine compliance with the constitutional deadline, the verdict said.
“At the time of production, the magistrate is duty-bound to record the actual date and time of detention of the person produced before him when his liberty stood curtailed, and examine whether the 24-hour deadline has been complied with or not from the time of such detention. If there is a breach of 24-hour deadline, the concerned person shall be forthwith released from detention,” the bench said.
The apex court held that the magistrate shall also examine at the time of production whether the detention of the person produced, though is within the time frame of 24 hours, has exceeded the period which can be construed to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
“If he is satisfied that detention in custody has been for a longer period than what is reasonable, he may decline remand,” it added.
