IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – An arrestee shall have to be produced before nearest Magistrate within 24 hours excluding time required for his production before such Magistrate, failing which his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody.

ORDER

Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Bittu Kumar, who was arrested, on 15.04.2025, in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 76/2025.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.04.2025, one Dipti Timung had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Noonmati Police Station, inter alia, alleging that at around 5:00 PM on that day when the informant entered into an SBI booth at Narangi Kalangpar Market to withdraw an amount of Rs.2000/-, he found there were two other persons inside the ATM booth who have seen the using of PIN by the informant. It is also alleged that those two persons exchanged the ATM card of the informant and later on it was found that an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) has been withdrawn from the account of the informant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2025, however, after his arrest he was tortured by the police and was admitted in GMCH. He also submits that in the forwarding report dated 16.04.2025 submitted by the Investigating Officer of the Noonmati P.S. Case No. 76/2025, it was reported to the Court that the present petitioner attempted to flee away when he was arrested and, in the process, he fell down from the hillside and sustained serious injuries, therefore, he had to rushed to the hospital.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the forwarding report, the Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioner may be produced before the Magistrate through video conferencing, however, the Magistrate before whom the forwarding report was submitted neither allowed the petitioner to be produced through video conferencing nor he himself visited the hospital to ascertain the condition of the petitioner who was stated to be badly injured.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that instead the Magistrate allowed the Investigating Officer to produce the petitioner as soon as he is released from the hospital, however, no order has been passed by the Magistrate as to whether the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody or to police custody.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 15.04.2025 and since then he has been under arrest without there being any order for his remand either judicial or police. He further submits that as per Section 187(2) of BNSS, the Magistrate to whom an accused is forwarded, may after taking into consideration whether such a person has not been released on bail or if his bail has been cancelled, authorize from time to time the detention of accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole or in parts at any time during initial 40 days or 60 days out of the detention period of 60 days or 90 days as the case may be.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, had erred in practically allowing the petitioner to remain in custody of the police as after his arrest was reported to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by the Investigating Officer by filing a forwarding report dated 16.04.2025 neither the petitioner was granted bail nor he was remanded to judicial custody or police custody. Hence, he submits that the arrest of the petitioner becomes illegal beyond 24 hours of his date and time of arrest as it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings:-

(i) “Directorate of Enforcement –Vs- Subhash Sharma” reported in “2025 0 INSC 141”

(ii) “Khatri –Vs- State of Bihar” reported in “1980 0 Supreme (SC) 530”

(iii)