Detention beyond 24 hours without magistrate oversight violates constitutional rights requiring immediate bail granting.

ORDER :

C.S. DIAS, J.

The petitioner is arraigned as the 2nd accused in Crime No. 525/2025 registered by the Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that:

At around 12:45 hours, on 20.07.2025, the petitioner and the 1^st accused were arrested at the spot for allegedly being found in conscious possession of 338.16 grams of MDMA. Notwithstanding his arrest at 12.55 hours, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate only at 14.10 hours on 21.07.2025, well beyond the mandated period of twenty-four hours under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. Although the petitioner filed an application for bail before the Court of Session, Palakkad, by Annexure 2 order, the learned Sessions Judge, after finding that the petitioner was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, only ordered the Superintendent, District Jail, Palakkad, to release the petitioner without enlarging him on bail. However, immediately after his release, the 2^nd respondent rearrested the petitioner on the precincts of the prison, produced him before the Court, and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner’s rearrest is patently illegal and unjustifiable. The learned Sessions Judge’s ought to have enlarged the petitioner on bail, rather than merely ordering his release. Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge ratified the illegal arrest by remanding the petitioner to judicial custody.

3. I have heard Sri. Sadik Ismayil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri. Sadik Ismail, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (2025 (2) KHC 45), contends that, once the learned Sessions Judge entered a finding that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate after twenty-four hours, the arrest itself stood vitiated. It was then imperative for the learned Sessions Judge to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The mere direction to release the petitioner from jail, without granting him bail, has emboldened the Police to re-arrest the petitioner and made a mockery of Annexure 2 order, and circumvented the constitutional safeguard. Hence, Annexure 3 remand report deserves to be set aside, and the petitioner may be ordered to be enlarged on bail.

5. Conversely, Sri. M.P. Prasanth vehemently opposes the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (for short, ‘Crl.M.C’). He contends that Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘ BNSS ’), empowers the Police to re-arrest the petitioner. It is invoking the said power and considering the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that the petitioner was rearrested and remanded to judicial custody. Now the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, only if he satisfies the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with Annexure 3 remand report, especially since the petitioner has not challenged Annexure 2 order. The Crl. M.C. is meritless and hence may be dismissed.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, by Annexure 2 order, has unequivocally found that the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest as per the mandate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India . Undisputedly, the State has not challenged the finding in Annexure 2 order.

7. Article 22 (1) and (2) of the Constitution reads as under:

“Article 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases:

(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be,