1. Accused persons were apprehended during a search and seizure operation for alleged drug trafficking offences, with formal arrest recorded significantly later than the initial detention. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1332
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Sri Sujit Das And Ors. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.
12451-12453 of 2026)
Decided On : 05-11-2026
Important Points
The 24-hour mandate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution commences from the moment of initial detention and curtailment of liberty, not from the formal recording of arrest. Any artificial distinction between 'detention' and 'arrest' to delay judicial production is unconstitutional and vitiates the arrest.
Subject
Criminal Law - Constitutional Rights & Bail
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA: S.36, S.58, S.187
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.22(2)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.57, S.167, S.439, S.46, S.161
CUSTOMS ACT: S.135
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT: S.35(1)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT: S.21(c), S.22(c), S.23(c), S.25, S.28, S.29, S.37, S.42(1)(d), S.50, S.43(b), S.67, S.41, S.51, S.52(a), S.20(b)(ii)(c)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES SEIZURE, STORAGE, SAMPLING AND DISPOSAL RULES: R.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.22(2)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.57, S.167, S.439, S.46, S.161
CUSTOMS ACT: S.135
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT: S.35(1)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT: S.21(c), S.22(c), S.23(c), S.25, S.28, S.29, S.37, S.42(1)(d), S.50, S.43(b), S.67, S.41, S.51, S.52(a), S.20(b)(ii)(c)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES SEIZURE, STORAGE, SAMPLING AND DISPOSAL RULES: R.3
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 and Article 22(2) - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 37, 42, 50 and 67 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 36 and 58 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 57 and 167 - Production of arrested person before Magistrate within 24 hours - Commencement of 24-hour period - Curtailment of liberty vs formal arrest - Distinction between detention and arrest - The 24-hour deadline under Article 22(2) is sacrosanct; only time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate can be excluded - The timeline commences when a person is intercepted and detained and their liberty is effectively curtailed, not from the time of formal arrest recording - Any attempt to create an artificial distinction between "detention" and "arrest" to create a "buffer zone" for investigation is unconstitutional and dilutes fundamental protections - Violation of this mandate vitiates the arrest and renders continued detention illegal, overriding the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Paras 16, 58, 64, 69)
(B) Interpretation of Fundamental Rights - Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are not gifts from the State but are basic human rights that limit state power - Must be interpreted in a broad, generous, and purposive manner to ensure citizens enjoy these rights in the fullest measure and to prevent the whittling down of constitutional safeguards. (Paras 51, 52, 55)
(C) Prevention of Custodial Abuse - The 24-hour production rule is a critical safety barrier to check executive excess and prevent custodial violence, torture, and the practice of "screening arrest" where deprivation of liberty is described as prolonged interrogation to avoid judicial oversight. (Paras 28, 61)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were intercepted by law enforcement in a vehicle carrying a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. They were taken into control at 02:00 pm on a specific date. After search and seizure procedures, which concluded at 05:00 pm the same day, they were formally arrested the following morning around 11:00 am and produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 04:45 pm the next day. The duration from the initial curtailment of liberty to production before the magistrate exceeded 24 hours.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arrest for the purpose of Article 22(2) occurred at 02:00 pm when the appellants were first intercepted and their liberty was curtailed. Consequently, they should have been produced before the Magistrate by 02:00 pm the next day. The production at 04:45 pm constituted a clear constitutional breach. Additionally, the 18-hour gap between the conclusion of the search procedure and the formal arrest was deemed an unreasonable period of detention under Section 58 of the BNSS.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate commences from the time of formal arrest or from the moment of initial detention and curtailment of liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "arrested" and "detained in custody" in Article 22(2) are synonymous; the clock starts when the law takes control of the person. Formalities of search, seizure, and investigation do not suspend the constitutional countdown. Any violation of Article 22(2) renders the arrest unconstitutional, and in such events, the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 overrides the restrictions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Paras 58-60, 66, 69)
Result: Criminal appeals allowed; High Court order set aside; appellants directed to be released on bail.
(B) Interpretation of Fundamental Rights - Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are not gifts from the State but are basic human rights that limit state power - Must be interpreted in a broad, generous, and purposive manner to ensure citizens enjoy these rights in the fullest measure and to prevent the whittling down of constitutional safeguards. (Paras 51, 52, 55)
(C) Prevention of Custodial Abuse - The 24-hour production rule is a critical safety barrier to check executive excess and prevent custodial violence, torture, and the practice of "screening arrest" where deprivation of liberty is described as prolonged interrogation to avoid judicial oversight. (Paras 28, 61)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were intercepted by law enforcement in a vehicle carrying a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. They were taken into control at 02:00 pm on a specific date. After search and seizure procedures, which concluded at 05:00 pm the same day, they were formally arrested the following morning around 11:00 am and produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 04:45 pm the next day. The duration from the initial curtailment of liberty to production before the magistrate exceeded 24 hours.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arrest for the purpose of Article 22(2) occurred at 02:00 pm when the appellants were first intercepted and their liberty was curtailed. Consequently, they should have been produced before the Magistrate by 02:00 pm the next day. The production at 04:45 pm constituted a clear constitutional breach. Additionally, the 18-hour gap between the conclusion of the search procedure and the formal arrest was deemed an unreasonable period of detention under Section 58 of the BNSS.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate commences from the time of formal arrest or from the moment of initial detention and curtailment of liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "arrested" and "detained in custody" in Article 22(2) are synonymous; the clock starts when the law takes control of the person. Formalities of search, seizure, and investigation do not suspend the constitutional countdown. Any violation of Article 22(2) renders the arrest unconstitutional, and in such events, the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 overrides the restrictions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Paras 58-60, 66, 69)
Result: Criminal appeals allowed; High Court order set aside; appellants directed to be released on bail.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mr. Subhradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mr. Subhradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend that the 24-hour constitutional limit on detention commences upon initial restraint of liberty, while the prosecution argues for a distinction between investigative detention and formal arrest. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 )
3. Any attempt to create an artificial distinction between detention and arrest to circumvent the constitutional 24-hour production mandate is unconstitutional and invalidates the detention. (Para 16 , 26 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 58 , 61 , 64 )
4. The 24-hour mandate under Article 22(2) commences from the moment a person is detained and their liberty is curtailed, regardless of the time of formal arrest. (Para 16 , 58 , 66 , 69 )
5. The High Court judgment is set aside, and the appellants are directed to be released on bail for illegal detention beyond the constitutional time limits. (Para 68 , 69 , 71 )
6. When does the 24-hour period for producing an arrested person before a magistrate commence under Article 22(2) of the Constitution?
The 24-hour period commences at the moment a person is intercepted or detained by the investigating agency, when their liberty is effectively curtailed, which constitutes an arrest for constitutional purposes. (Para 16 , 58 , 64 , 66 , 69 )
7. Can authorities distinguish between 'detention for interrogation' and 'formal arrest' to extend the 24-hour production deadline?
No. The Constitution does not recognize any buffer zone where liberty is curtailed for investigation without the formal 24-hour production mandate. Artificial distinctions between investigative detention and formal arrest to delay production are unconstitutional. (Para 43 , 58 , 61 )
8. Does compliance with the NDPS Act's procedural formalities, such as Rule 3 seizure Rules, justify excluding time from the 24-hour production mandate?
No. Procedural compliances under the NDPS Act or other special statutes cannot prevent the detaining authority from producing the detainee before a magistrate within 24 hours of the start of detention. (Para 40 , 43 , 69 )
9. What is the requirement regarding 'reasonable' detention within the 24-hour constitutional limit under Section 58 of the BNSS?
Detention without warrant must not exceed what is reasonable in the circumstances, and the magistrate must examine not only the 24-hour deadline but also whether the length of detention before production was reasonable. (Para 18 , 60 , 67 )
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This batch of appeals take exception to the common judgment and order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala (briefly, ‘the High Court’ hereinafter), dismissing the regular bail applications of the appellants.
3. Sri Sujit Das, Sri Suman Das and Sri Rupak Sarkar are the three appellants before us. Smt. Ratna Das had filed Bail Application No. 72/2026 before the High Court on behalf of the accused Sri Sujit Das. Sri Sanjit Das filed Bail Application No. 74/2026 before the High Court on behalf of accused Suman Das. Likewise, Sri Dipak Sarkar had filed Bail Application No. 75/2026 before the High Court on behalf of accused Rupak Sarkar. All the three Bail Applications were heard together and disposed of by the High Court vide the common judgment and order dated 29.04.2026 (‘impugned judgment’ hereinafter) rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the accused, who are the appellants before this Court.
4. Be it stated that the appellants are accused in Case No.04/CL/NDPS/DPF/AGT/2025-26, registered under Sections 21(C)/22(C)/23(C)/25/25A/28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (briefly ‘the NDPS Act’ hereinafter).
5. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a secret information, Sri Rahul Sharma, Inspector, Divisional Preventive Force (DPF), Customs Division, Agartala, constituted a team to carry out an ambush on 29.09.2025, at around 08:00 am at a place which is 6 kilometers away from Khowai Chowmuhani. The secret information was that three persons were travelling in a truck and proceeding towards Agartala carrying narcotic/psychotropic substances. At around 09:05 am, the suspected vehicle bearing registration No. TR-06-1767 arrived at the place where the ambush was set up. The Inspector found that there were three occupants in the said truck including the driver. Inspector Rahul Sharma followed the said truck along with his team and, at around 01:00 pm, another person came on a motorcycle and met the occupants of the truck at a place called Shanitala Noabadi. They handed over one white coloured plastic sack to the person who came on a motorcycle after taking it out from the truck. At that point of time, all the four of them were detained by the search team and a total 11.03 Kg. of methamphetamine (Yaba) tablets were recovered. After re-checking of the vehicle, two trolly bags were further recovered, which were hidden deep under the sacks containing ginger on the cargo bed of the truck. Upon opening of each of the trolly bags, the officer recovered brown packets. When those brown packets were opened, blue and black plastic sachets containing small pink tablets with a pungent smell, believed to be Yaba, were found. Inspector Rahul Sharma then completed all the seizure related procedural formalities and arrested the four persons i.e. the three occupants of the truck and the person who arrived at the scene on a motorcycle. These four persons include the three appellants and one Sri Raju Das. The accused persons were arrested on 30.09.2025 and since then they have been in custody.
6. Before the High Court it was argued on behalf of the accused persons that there was violation of the mandatory provision of Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (briefly, “BNSS” hereinafter), which would override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 36 is only a statutory exposition of the Constitutional norm provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 would override Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that the signature of the near relative of the arrested accused persons, or of any respectable person from the locality, was not obtained in the arrest memo; prima facie, there was violation of Section 36 of BNSS by the arresting officer. However, given the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the accused persons would still not be entitled to bail even if ther
