JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. BSF apprehended the petitioner of CRM (NDPS) 573 of 2025 Zanaul Seikh @ Senaul on 26.02.2025 at about 03.30 a.m. and petitioner of CRM (NDPS) 581 of 2025 Rakib Molla @ Molla was apprehended by BSF at about 7.40 p.m. on 20th April, 2025, with commercial quantity of codein phosphate cough syrup in their possession. It is alleged by counsel for petitioners in both the cases that both the accused persons were produced before the court after 24 hours of their confinement, violating mandate of the constitution as well as provisions of BNSS.

2. Petitioner of CRM (NDPS) 573 of 2025,was apprehended at 3.30 a.m. on 26.02.2025 but police registered case at 7.30 p.m. on the same day, when he was produced before police by BSF and the petitioner was produced before court at 10.30 a.m. on 27.02.2025. Similarly, in case of CRM (NDPS) 581 of 2025, petitioner was apprehended by BSF on 20.04.2025 at 19.40 hrs but FIR was registered on next date i.e. 21.04.2025 at 15.05 hrs and produced before court on 22.04.2025 at about 10.30 a.m.

3. Petitioners’ respective counsels argument is that petitioners’ were detained in custody for more than 24 hrs before they were produced before court, in violation of article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, read with section 57 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to section 58 of the BNSS. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the investigating agency while arresting the petitioners, failed to communicate with them or any person nominated by them, with grounds of arrest either orally or in writing and thereby making it difficult for them to seek legal advice and to prefer an application for their release on bail before the Court concerned in time.

4. It was further argued that the requirement of informing the persons arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement and it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody, to be informed of the grounds of arrest, as soon as possible and it is also his fundamental right that he will be produced before the concerned court within 24 hrs, when he was apprehended by the authority. Since, the said constitutional provisions have not been followed in the instant case, the arrest has been vitiated and the petitioners of respective applications may be granted bail on any terms and conditions.

5. Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the BSF submits that it is true that the BSF had apprehended petitioner on 20th April, 2025 at 19.40 hrs. and FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 21st April 2025 at about 3.05 p.m., in case of petitioner of CRM (NDPS) 581 of 2025 and in the context of petitioner of CRM (NDPS) 573 of 2025, though petitioner was apprehended at 3.30 a.m. but FIR was lodged on 7.30 p.m. on that day, when they produced the petitioner to the police but Mr. Mondal argued that delay in producing the petitioner before the police was not intentional or wilful. It was occasioned purely due to operational exigency of BSF and due to deployment in extreme forward border area, coupled with the necessity to establish the identity, nationality of the detained persons, preparation of mandatory legal documents, medical examination and compliance with instruments required by the police. The delay is therefore, unavoidable and was due to procedural and operational requirements and therefore violation of petitioners constitutional or legal rights does not arise.

6. Mr. Mondal further argued that the Border Security Force Act, 1965 empowers members of the force to apprehend persons suspect of committing cognizable offence, however the said Act does not authorize the BSF to investigate offence under the NDPS Act or BNSS, or to file charge sheets. The BSF is a security force, not a police force or investigating agency under chapter XIII of the BNSS and its role ends upon the safe handover of the accused and contraband to the local police. In this co