The detention of the petitioners beyond 24 hours without judicial authorization violated their fundamental rights, resulting in illegal arrest.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are two bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Purushottampur PS Case No.14 of 2025 arising out of GR Case No.14 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 317(2)/309(6)/111/123 of BNS pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Purushottampur.

2.1 The allegations in brief are that on 04.01.2025 at about 04:45PM, while Kuntala Gouda and Sweety Gouda were going to Purushottampur from their village Chadhiapalli by an auto rickshaw, the driver of the said auto rickshaw took them away towards Rambha area, instead of Purushottampur and threw away them at the road side by spraying some poisonous substance on their nose and taking away some gold ornaments weighing 2 tola gold neckless and 80 Grams silver ornaments, when they become unconscious. The aforesaid two persons were rescued by Rambha Police and admitted to Chattrapur Hospital. On this incident, the son of Kuntala Gouda lodged an FIR on 05.01.2025 paving the way for registration of Purushottampur PS Case No. 14 of 2025 and in the course of investigation, the involvement of the present Petitioners were allegedly unearthed and they were taken into custody.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 5527 of 2025 prays to grant bail to the petitioner on the plea of their illegal detention in custody on the ground that the petitioners were forwarded to the Court after the statutory period of maximum 24 hours prescribed for detention in custody and thereby, their arrest being violative of Sections 57, 58 and 187 of BNSS , the further detention of the petitioners is illegal.

3.1. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 6993 of 2025 also takes the same plea only in the course of argument, but he has not taken such plea in his bail application.

3.2. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, does not dispute about the detention of the Petitioners in custody w.e.f 5:00am on 16.01.2025 till they were produced before the Court concerned on 17.01.2025 at about 8:00am after arresting them at about 00:20am in the intervening night of 16/17.01.2025, but Mr. Mohanty clarifies that the Petitioners were only detained in Buguda PS for investigation in another case w.e.f 05:00 am on 16.01.2025 till 00:20 am of 16/17.01.2025 and, therefore, there is hardly any violation of the statutory of provision of law for which the arrest of the Petitioners cannot be considered illegal. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Mohanty prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioners.

4. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions makes it apparently clear that the plea of illegal detention of the Petitioners as advanced stems from the provisions of Sec. 58 of BNSS (Sec. 57 of CrPC) which is titled as “person arrested not to be detained more than 24 hours” and it is accordingly, laid down in Sec. 58 of BNSS that no Police Official shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 187 of BNSS (U/S. 167 CrPC), exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court, whether having jurisdiction or not. What is significant is that arrest has not been defined either in BNSS or in any statute, but how arrest is made has been provided in Sec. 43(1) of BNSS (Sec. 46 of CrPC) and it is stated therein that in making an a