Detention from the time of the raid constituted a violation of the Applicant's rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution, leading to the grant of bail with stringent conditions.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - The Applicant claims violation of rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and, on this basis, he claims that his detention stood vitiated and rendered illegal. This is the sole ground raised on his behalf for grant of bail.

2. The Applicant is a Nigerian National and he is facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Applicant claims that even as per the documents of the Respondent no.1-Narcotic Control Bureau, he stood detained from 6.25 p.m. on 07.03.2021 and he was eventually produced before the Magistrate on 09.03.2021 in the morning at about 10.00 a.m., thereby showing that his right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution stood violated. As per the said Article of the Constitution, every person who is arrested and detained in custody, has to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours. It is contended that the said right of the Applicant was violated, thereby showing that his liberty was curtailed without adhering to procedure established by law and that, therefore, his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stood violated.

3. Mr. Poulekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, in order to support the aforesaid contention, invited attention of this Court to the panchanama dated 07.03.2021, executed by the concerned Officer of the Respondent no.1. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the panchanama records that at 6:25p.m., the team of Respondent no.1 reached the house of the Applicant. It is recorded that there was some resistance, wherein the Officer of the Respondent no.1 suffered minor injuries and that the Applicant and another person were taken into control. The panchanama records how the house was searched and that the Applicant as well as the other person were then taken to the Police Station. It is then recorded that contraband was recovered and upon the details of the contraband being recorded, the panchanama proceedings were completed at 1:20 a.m. on 08.03.2021. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicant was kept in the Police Station on the entire day of 08.03.2021 and thereafter, on 09.03.2021, he was produced before the Magistrate.

4. The learned Counsel then relied upon the contents of the application for judicial custody filed on behalf of the Respondent no.1, wherein it was stated that the Applicant along with the other accused person were both placed under arrest at 5:30 p.m. on 08.03.2021. It was submitted that such statement made in the application was immaterial to determine the period of 24 hours under Article 22(2) of the Constitution because, even as per the panchanama, at 6:25 p.m. on 07.03.2021 itself, the Applicant was detained as his movements were controlled and curtailed by the Respondent no.1. It was submitted that the Applicant had applied for bail before the Magistrate on 08.03.2021 itself. In this application, the Applicant had specifically raised the ground of violation of his Constitutional rights as he was not produced within 24 hours before the Magistrate. Instead of considering the said aspect of the matter, the Magistrate had simply directed the Applicant to be produced before the Special Court concerning NDPS offences. It was when the Applicant was produced before the said Special Court at about 3.00 p.m. on 09.03.2021, that an order was passed sending the Applicant to judicial custody.

5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, this issue was specifically raised even in the application for grant of bail filed before the learned Sessions Court but, by order dated 02.08.2021, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, rejected the said contention by simply holding that once the Special Court had passed an order sending the Applicant to judicial custody, the said ground pertaining to violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) of t