New Delhi, November 5, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a Magistrate begins from the moment their liberty is actually curtailed, and not from the time police formally record the arrest.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling while allowing appeals filed by four persons challenging a Tripura High Court order that had denied them bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Interpreting Article 22(2) of the Constitution, the Bench held that the 24-hour period must be calculated from the date and time of actual detention. The constitutional provision requires an arrested and detained person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey to the court, and prohibits further detention without judicial authorisation.
Rejecting the argument that the period begins only after searches and seizures are completed and formal arrest is recorded, the court said such an interpretation was “not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional”.
The Bench clarified that if detention continues beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate, the person must be released forthwith. No time can be excluded from the calculation other than the necessary journey to the Magistrate’s court.
The court also stressed that compliance with the constitutional deadline does not, by itself, make detention lawful or reasonable. Under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), police cannot detain a person arrested without a warrant beyond a reasonable period, subject to the statutory 24-hour limit and necessary journey time, unless authorised by a Magistrate.
The Bench said Magistrates must independently record the actual time when an accused person’s liberty was curtailed and examine whether both the constitutional deadline and the requirement of reasonable detention have been met. They may refuse further remand if the custody period is found unreasonable.
Setting aside the Tripura High Court judgment, the Supreme Court directed the release of the four appellants on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court.
FOLLOW NOW
