The distinction between detention and formal arrest is crucial; detention during an investigation does not necessarily constitute an arrest unless it deprives the individual of liberty, affecting compliance with constitutional mandates.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision under Section 442 with Section 438 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned decision by order dated 12^th September, 2025 passed in connection with Special T.R. Case No. 378 of 2025 by the learned District Judge and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar arising out of NCB, Bhubaneswar Crime No. 04 of 2025 on the grounds inter alia that such decision is arbitrary and illegal, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and set at naught followed by a consequential direction issued releasing him forthwith from judicial custody.

2. The petitioner was apprehended by the NCB on 22^nd July, 2025 and is in judicial custody since then with an allegation that he was in possession of commercial quantity of LSD seized from him. Apart from other grounds, the primary contention demanding release of the petitioner is based on his illegal detention beyond 24 hours in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. While challenging the decision of the learned Court below, the chronological sequence of events starting from the time of detention, search and seizure, interrogation, formal arrest and production of the petitioner have been pleaded on record. It has been pleaded that the NCB team reached the spot house at 1.15 P.M. and thereafter, served him a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act followed by search and seizure and left the place at 4.50 P.M. In fact, the above sequence is based on the revelation made by the NCB and referring to the same, immediate release of the petitioner is pleaded on the ground that he was not produced within 24 hours of arrest. Such detention is alleged on and from 1.15 P.M. on 22^nd July, 2025 with a plea that the petitioner was physically restrained at his residence and was no longer free to leave and even accepting the version of NCB, the production was ensured between 5.00 P.M. and 5.30 P.M. and as such, the custody was approximately 28 hours, which is, hence, illegal and unconstitutional. It is further pleaded that a formal arrest is shown much after the confinement and therefore, the detention is more than 24 hours when the petitioner was required to be produced before the court below before expiry of such period as statutorily mandated. The contention IS that the learned court below could not have allowed further detention in custody when there has been non-compliance of Section 57 Cr.P.C. read with Section 58 BNSS as it had become unauthorized and gross violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mrs. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI and Mr. Panda, learned CGC for Union of India (NCB).

4. According to Mrs. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, there has been breach of 24 hours rule since the record reveals that on 22^nd July, 2025 upon a prior information received from Delhi Zonal Unit, the NCB team left for the residence of the petitioner and reached there at about 1.15 P.M. entered inside the premises with independent witnesses and conducted search and seizure and left the place at around 4.50 P.M.-5.00 P.M having control over him throughout such search but a formal arrest was shown at 11.30 P.M. in the night and was produced before the court below on 23^rd July, 2025 between 5.00 P.M. and 5.30 P.M. and therefore, the custody had been for 28 hours and therefore, such detention beyond 24 hours is ex-facie unconstitutional. It is contended that 24 hours limit for production