Supreme Court: 24-Hour Deadline to Produce Accused Before Magistrate Begins From Detention, Not Formal Arrest

New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment of actual detention, when the person's liberty is curtailed, and not from the time the police formally record the arrest. The court held that drawing an artificial distinction between 'detention' and 'arrest' is constitutionally unsustainable.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that allowing investigating agencies to exclude the period of detention before a formal arrest would undermine the protection guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The bench clarified that time spent in questioning, inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before formal arrest must also be included while calculating the 24-hour period.

The court said the only exception permitted while calculating this deadline is the time reasonably required for travelling from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court. It made clear that investigating agencies cannot create an additional period for inquiry or investigation by delaying the formal recording of an arrest.

The ruling came in appeals filed by four persons challenging a Tripura High Court decision that had denied them bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The accused were detained during a search and seizure operation at around 2 pm on September 29, 2025, but their formal arrest was recorded at 11 am the following day. They were produced before a magistrate at 4:45 pm on September 30.

The Supreme Court held that the 24-hour period had to be calculated from 2 pm on September 29. Since the accused were produced before the magistrate after the deadline, the court found a violation of Article 22(2) and ordered their immediate release from custody. The case involved the alleged seizure of 11.03 kg of methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as yaba.

The bench also directed magistrates to record the actual date and time when a person's detention begins and independently verify whether the constitutional 24-hour requirement has been followed. Magistrates must additionally examine whether the period of detention is reasonable under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), even if it falls within the 24-hour limit. If the detention is found to be unreasonably prolonged, they may refuse to authorise further remand.

The Supreme Court also disapproved of earlier rulings by the Orissa High Court in the Aryaman Pattanaik case, the Kerala High Court in the Arun K Thomas case and the Madras High Court in the Kannan case, which had allowed the period of detention before formal arrest to be excluded from the constitutional deadline. The bench held that those decisions did not lay down the correct law on the interpretation of Article 22(2).