24-hour period to produce before magistrate starts with detention, not formal arrest: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the mandatory 24-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate begins from the moment the person's liberty is curtailed through actual detention and not from the time the investigating agency formally records the arrest.

A bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar held that any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between detention and formal arrest to circumvent the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2) is constitutionally unsustainable.

Also Read: Supreme Court gives panel one month to submit first report on alleged police excesses during CJP protests


The court clarified that the only period which can be excluded while computing the 24-hour deadline is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court. Time spent in inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before formally recording the arrest cannot be excluded.

"The Constitution does not recognise any detention divorced from arrest," the bench observed, adding that the expressions 'arrested' and 'detained' under Article 22(2) have to be read together.

Also Read: Centre supports plea to deny perks to high office holders who quit to avoid removal

It held that if a person continues to remain in detention beyond 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate, the person must be released forthwith.

The judgement was delivered in appeals filed by four persons, challenging a Tripura High Court order denying them bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act involving the alleged seizure of 11.03 kg of methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as yaba.

The appellants were detained on September 29, 2025, at around 2 pm during a search and seizure operation. However, their formal arrest was recorded only at 11 am the following day. They were produced before a magistrate at 4.45 pm on September 30.

Holding that the 24-hour period had commenced at 2 pm on September 29, when their liberty was first curtailed, the Supreme Court found that their production before the magistrate was beyond the constitutionally prescribed deadline.

The bench held that the delay of 18 hours between the conclusion of the search and seizure operation and the formal recording of arrest was also unreasonable under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. No explanation had been furnished for the delay.

The court directed that magistrates must record the actual date and time of detention of every person produced before them and independently ascertain whether the 24-hour constitutional requirement has been complied with. They must also examine whether the period of detention, even if within 24 hours, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If the detention is found excessive, the magistrate can decline to authorise remand.

Emphasising the need to prevent custodial violence and abuse of investigative powers, the bench observed that the worst violations of human rights often occur during investigations, when agencies resort to prolonged interrogation without formally recording arrests.

The court also held that constitutional safeguards under Article 21 cannot be diluted by the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act or any other special legislation. It observed that where fundamental rights are violated, statutory restrictions on bail must give way.