24-Hour Production Clock Starts From Moment of Detention, Not Formal Arrest: Kerala High Court | Article 22(2) - 2025-08-14

24-Hour Clock for Producing Accused Starts from Moment of Detention, Not Formal Arrest, Rules Kerala High Court

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional safeguards against illegal detention, the Kerala High Court has held that the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a Magistrate begins from the moment their liberty is effectively curtailed, not from the time a formal arrest is recorded by the investigating agency.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, granting bail to a man accused in a narcotics case, observed that the police practice of delaying the formal recording of an arrest to prolong interrogation constitutes "unrecorded custody" and is a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

The court was hearing a bail application filed by Biswajit Mandal, who was accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) of possessing a commercial quantity (26.92 kg) of ganja.

The Core of the Case

The central legal question before the court was: When does the twenty-four-hour period to produce an accused before the Magistrate commence? Does it start from the time of arrest as recorded by the police or from the time when the accused was detained?

According to the case records, Mr. Mandal was taken into custody from the Ernakulam Junction Railway Station at 3:00 PM on January 25, 2025. However, the NCB formally recorded his arrest nearly 23 hours later, at 2:00 PM on January 26, 2025. He was finally produced before a Magistrate at 8:00 PM that evening.

Arguments at the Bar

The petitioner's counsel, Adv. Fathima Sulfath N.B. , argued that the detention beyond 24 hours from the initial moment of custody was a flagrant violation of the accused's constitutional rights, warranting his release on bail.

The NCB's Special Public Prosecutor, Sri. R. Vinu Raj , contended that since the accused was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of the formal arrest , the procedure was lawful.

In a notable move, the court appointed two second-year law students, Ms. Nikhina Thomas and Ms. Neha Babu , as Amici Curiae to assist in the matter. In a "well-articulated address," they argued that the 24-hour clock must begin from the "moment of effective curtailment of liberty." They submitted that the delay in recording the arrest created an illegal "unrecorded period of custody," rendering the detention unlawful.

Court's Reasoning: Upholding Liberty Against Procedural Evasion

Justice Thomas undertook a detailed analysis of constitutional provisions and Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that fundamental rights are the "pride of our Constitution" and Article 21 is its "soul."

The court drew upon landmark judgments to define the true meaning of "arrest" and "custody."

"The equivocatory quibblings and hide and seek niceties sometimes heard in court that the police have taken a man into informal custody but not arrested him, have detained him for interrogation but not taken him into formal custody and other like terminological dubieties are unfair evasions of the straightforwardness of the law." - the court quoted the Supreme Court's observation in Niranjan Singh (1980) .

The judgment also highlighted the Supreme Court's warning in D.K. Basu (1997) that the "worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation" when police screen arrests by not recording them.

Justice Thomas concluded that an arrest occurs the moment a person's liberty is restrained, regardless of when the official paperwork is completed.

"The failure, refusal or omission to record an arrest or continuation of an interrogation for prolonged periods without recording arrest, shall not preclude those periods of curtailed liberty as constituting arrest."

The Final Verdict

Applying this principle to the facts, the court found that Mr. Mandal's liberty was curtailed at 3:00 PM on January 25, 2025. His production before the Magistrate at 8:00 PM the next day was well beyond the constitutionally mandated 24-hour limit (excluding travel time).

"There has been an unrecorded period of custody, which indicates illegal detention. Petitioner is hence required to be enlarged on bail," the court ordered.

Mr. Mandal was granted bail on executing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, along with other conditions. The court concluded by placing on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the two student Amici Curiae, referring to them as "the growing buds of the noble profession."