Violation of 24-hour production mandate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution renders custody illegal, necessitating bail despite the seriousness of charges.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (the MCOCA) has been filed on behalf of accused no. 7 (A7) in Crime No. 629/2024, Farsh Bazar, Police Station, aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2025, as per which the trial court dismissed his application for bail. The appellant/accused, as per the aforesaid FIR, is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under various Sections 103 (1), 3(5), 249, 61(2), 303, 318, 336 and 341 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA.

2. According to the appellant/A7, he was detained on the intervening night of 25.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 at Amritsar Airport pursuant to a Look-out Circular (LoC), when he was leaving for Bangkok for business purposes. He was taken to a police station in Amritsar, from where his custody was handed over to the Special Cell, Delhi, without being produced before the nearest Magistrate. He was then taken by road from Amritsar to Delhi. He was produced before the Court only on 27.09.2025, i.e., after more than 24 hours. The learned counsel submitted that once the appellant was detained at the airport, he was effectively in custody, and his period of detention shall be calculated from that point. It was further submitted that the appellant was earlier granted interim bail for a period of 21 days, which he did not misuse. He regularly joined the investigation and cooperated throughout. Reliance has been placed on the dictums inSubhash Sharma vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 SCC OnLineChh 2794; Amandeep Singh Johar vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448 and Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma (SLP (Crl.) No. 1136/2023) dated 21.01.2025.

3. Per Contra, it was contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) that a notice had been issued to the appellant on 22.09.2025 to join the investigation on 23.09.2025 in Delhi, but he did not appear. Thereafter, a request for the issuance of a LoC was made on 24.09.2025. In the intervening night of 25.09.2025- 26.09.2025, information was received by the investigating team in Delhi from the police station, Amritsar Airport, that the appellant had been detained. A team from Special Cell, Delhi went to Amritsar on 26.09.2025, on which day by about 02:00 PM they obtained his custody. This is reflected in the General Diary entry. It was submitted that on 26.09.2025 after a brief interrogation, the appellant was released on the same day after giving him a notice, directing him to join the investigation on the next day morning, that is, on 27.09.2025. Pursuant to the same, the appellant joined the investigation in the morning of 27.09.2025. He was interrogated at length and finding sufficient evidence of his involvement in the aforesaid crime, was arrested at 11:00 AM on the same day. He was then brought to Delhi by road and produced before the Special Court at 4:00 PM on the same date. It was also submitted that the notice, that is, Annexure-J (Colly), bears the signature of the appellant. Therefore, the question of violation of the statutory period of 24 hours does not arise, argued the prosecutor.

4. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the General Diary entry, that is, Annexure-E (Colly) relied on by the prosecution does not mention that any notice was served upon the appellant in their presence. It also does not disclose where the appellant was taken in the government vehicle on 26.09.2025; where the interrogation was conducted; or at which place he was allegedly released and as