G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is the bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Raighar PS Case No.93 of 2024 arising out of CT Case No.21 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 370/370(3)/376-D/294/323/506 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Umarkote.

2. The case arises out of an FIR lodged by Raibabu Bag by stating therein that on 14.03.2024, one Ghasiram Harijan of his village lured his brother, sister-in-law and nephew for earning Rs.35,000/- in four months by working at Tirupati Bricks Factory. On 09.01.2024, around 14 persons of his village and another village namely Khalepara were being taken by said Ghasiram Harijan & his associates to engage them at Tirupati Bricks Kilns and accordingly, Ghasiram Harijan & his associates had handed over them to the in-charge of brick kilns and returned back to home, however, later on the informant came to know over mobile phone that the aforesaid persons were suffering a lot by working there in the brick kilns for more than eight hours without any proper wages and they have been tortured there.

On the aforesaid FIR, Raighar PS Case No. 93 of 2024 was registered and the matter was investigated into, and in the course of investigation, finding prima facie materials against the petitioner for his involvement in this case, he was taken into custody and produced before the Court, however, when the bail application of the petitioner was turned down, he is before this Court in this bail application.

3. Heard Mr.Manas Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

4. The primary ground on which bail is sought for to the petitioner is for infraction in compliance of the provision of Sec. 58 of BNSS(57 CrPC)/Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India for not producing the petitioner before the Court within 24 hours of his arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested from a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which the criminal case is registered, but the plea as advanced for the petitioner relates to his claim not only for his statutory right, but also for his fundamental right which cannot be withheld in any circumstance. There cannot be any real limitation/restriction, albeit legally imposed prohibiting criminals in committing crime in one State and fleeing to other State, but with advancement of technology, this situation of committing crime in one State and fleeing to other State has become a common phenomenon for offenders to avoid police arrest, however, the police force of the State where the crime was committed is also at liberty to pursue the criminals and apprehend them in different States where they have fled. In the aforesaid backdrop, when non-compliance of fundamental and mandatory right of the accused for his production before the Court within 24 hours of his arrest without warrant exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court has often been challenged as in this case, it would be appropriate to deal with the relevant provisions of law, more particularly in a case where the arrest of the accused without warrant has been made beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court in which the case of the accused has been registered. To start with this issue, it needs to be emphasized that Sec. 45 of the BNSS/48 of CrPC provides pursuit of offenders into other jurisdiction as “a police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorized to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India”. Similarly, Sec. 79 of the BNSS/77 of CrPC provides power for execution of warrant at any place in India, but Sec. 78 of BNSS/76 of CrPC prescribes that person arrested on warrant shall be brought before the Court issuing such warrant without unnecessary