The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional requirement to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours takes effect as soon as the investigating authorities restrict the person’s liberty, irrespective of when they formally record the arrest.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar ruled that an investigating agency cannot extend the period of custody by treating detention and formal arrest as separate stages. Where the constitutional deadline is breached without producing the person before a magistrate, continued custody becomes unlawful and immediate release is required.
The ruling came in Sujit Das v. Union of India, concerning arrests linked to the alleged recovery of 11.03 kilograms of methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as yaba. The Court set aside the Tripura High Court’s April 29 order denying bail to the accused and directed their immediate release.
Detention Cannot Be Excluded From Constitutional Time Limit
Interpreting Article 22(2) of the Constitution, the Court rejected the argument that the 24-hour period begins only when an investigating officer formally records an arrest.
The Bench held that the constitutional protection applies from the point at which a suspect comes under the control of the authorities and is no longer free to leave. An investigating agency cannot keep a person in custody for questioning and subsequently begin counting the statutory period from a later arrest entry.
The Court explained that permitting such a distinction would effectively allow investigators to create an additional period of detention without judicial supervision.
It held that Article 22(2) does not permit an investigative buffer period during which a person’s liberty remains restricted but the authorities decline to acknowledge a formal arrest.
The Bench further clarified that the expressions arrest and detention carry the same meaning for determining when the constitutional deadline begins. Only the time reasonably necessary to travel to the magistrate’s court may be excluded from the prescribed 24 hours.
18-Hour Delay Before Formal Arrest Found Unreasonable
The case arose after the accused were taken into custody by a search team at 2 PM on September 29, 2025. However, the investigating agency recorded their formal arrest only on September 30.
The accused challenged the legality of their custody, arguing that the delayed recording of arrest had been used to avoid the constitutional requirement of production before a magistrate.
The investigating agency maintained that the deadline should be calculated from the formal arrest on September 30.
Rejecting that position, the Supreme Court determined that the accused had been arrested for constitutional purposes at 2 PM on September 29, when they came under the search team’s control.
Consequently, they were required to be produced before a judicial magistrate by 2 PM on September 30. Their actual production took place at 4:45 PM that day, exceeding the constitutional limit.
The Bench concluded that the breach of Article 22(2) invalidated the arrests and made their continued detention beyond the permissible period illegal and unconstitutional.
The Court separately examined the 18-hour interval between completion of the search and seizure proceedings and the formal arrests. It found that the investigating agency had offered no explanation for the delay.
Referring to Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Bench held that custody must remain reasonable even where the total period has not crossed 24 hours.
An unexplained 18-hour period without judicial supervision, the Court found, could not satisfy that requirement.
Magistrates Must Verify Actual Time of Detention
The Supreme Court also clarified the responsibilities of magistrates when considering requests for remand.
Magistrates must ascertain and record the actual date and time at which the authorities detained the accused, rather than relying exclusively on the arrest time mentioned in official records.
They must independently examine whether the constitutional deadline under Article 22(2) has been complied with.
The Bench further held that a magistrate may refuse remand where the detention preceding production was unreasonably prolonged, even if it remained within the outer limit of 24 hours.
In reaching these conclusions, the Supreme Court disapproved the legal positions adopted by the Orissa High Court in Ariyaman Pattnayak, the Madras High Court in Kannan and the Kerala High Court in Arun K Thomas, holding them incorrect in law.
Constitutional Safeguards Cannot Be Weakened by NDPS Bail Restrictions
Addressing the relationship between fundamental rights and restrictions on bail under special legislation, the Court reaffirmed that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot override constitutional protections.
The Bench emphasised that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 occupies a central position in constitutional law. Where that right is violated, statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act or comparable special legislation must yield to the Constitution.
The Court also expressed reservations about observations made in Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora concerning the interaction between Article 21 and Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, it refrained from deciding the correctness of that coordinate Bench ruling.
Court Raises Concern Over Custodial Violence
The Supreme Court connected the constitutional safeguards against prolonged detention with the need to prevent custodial abuse during criminal investigations.
It observed that custodial violence remains a recognised problem in India, particularly during interrogation when authorities attempt to obtain information or confessions.
The Bench identified practices such as delaying arrest records or describing actual custody as extended questioning as methods that can conceal the deprivation of liberty.
According to the Court, constitutional protections must therefore operate from the moment a person is intercepted and detained by investigating authorities, rather than from a subsequently documented arrest.
Holding that the authorities had failed to comply with both Article 22(2) and the requirement of reasonable detention under Section 58 BNSS, the Supreme Court ordered the appellants’ immediate release from custody.
