Court says agencies cannot delay “formal arrest” to bypass Article 22(2); unconstitutional detention overrides NDPS bail bar under Section 37
In a significant ruling strengthening constitutional safeguards against unlawful detention, the Supreme Court has held that the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate begins from the moment the person’s liberty is first curtailed by the investigating agency, and not from the later time of “formal arrest” recorded in an arrest memo.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment in criminal appeals filed by Sri Sujit Das and two others, setting aside the Tripura High Court’s order that had denied them bail in an NDPS case.
The case arose from a Customs Division, Agartala operation on September 29, 2025, in which officials intercepted a truck and a motorcycle near Shanitala Noabadi and recovered methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as Yaba. According to the prosecution, the total recovery was 60.79 kg, a quantity far above the commercial threshold. The accused were booked under multiple provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that although they were intercepted and effectively detained at about 2:00 pm on September 29, 2025, they were shown as formally arrested only around 11:00 am to 11:15 am the next day, and were produced before the magistrate only at 4:45 pm on September 30. They contended that this was done to evade the constitutional requirement under Article 22(2), which mandates production before a magistrate within 24 hours.
The Union of India defended the delay, arguing that the intervening period was spent on mandatory NDPS procedures such as search, seizure, weighing, sampling, interrogation, and paperwork. It also argued that “detention” during search was distinct from “formal arrest,” and therefore the 24-hour clock began only after arrest was officially recorded.
Rejecting this stand, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not recognize any detention outside arrest when a person’s liberty has already been effectively curtailed. The Bench said that any attempt to create an artificial distinction between detention and arrest would dilute the protection guaranteed by Article 22(2).
The Court ruled that the only permissible exclusion while calculating the 24-hour deadline is the travel time from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court. Time spent on search, seizure, interrogation, inventory, sampling, or compliance with NDPS procedures cannot be excluded. It termed the idea of a “buffer zone” between detention and formal arrest as unconstitutional.
On facts, the Court found that the appellants were under the control of the search team from 2:00 pm on September 29, 2025. Therefore, they ought to have been produced before the magistrate by 2:00 pm on September 30. Since they were produced only at 4:45 pm, there was a clear breach of Article 22(2), making their arrest and continued detention illegal.
The Court also invoked Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which requires that detention without warrant should not only remain within 24 hours but also not exceed a reasonable period in the circumstances. It noted an unexplained gap of about 18 hours between the completion of search and seizure at 5:00 pm on September 29 and the formal arrest on the morning of September 30. The Bench said such prolonged custody without judicial oversight could not be considered reasonable.
Importantly, the Court held that where detention violates Articles 21 and 22(2), the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot stand in the way of bail. It observed that constitutional guarantees override statutory restrictions in such cases.
The Bench also disapproved contrary views taken by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattnayak, the Madras High Court in Kannan, and the Kerala High Court in Arun K. Thomas, to the extent those decisions treated detention during search and inquiry as distinct from arrest for the purpose of Article 22(2).
In addition, the Supreme Court laid down directions for magistrates. At the time of first production, magistrates must record the actual date and time from which the accused’s liberty was curtailed, verify compliance with the 24-hour rule, and release the detainee forthwith if there is a breach. Magistrates must also examine whether detention, even if within 24 hours, exceeded a reasonable period and avoid granting remand mechanically.
Allowing the appeals, the Court directed that the appellants be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within seven days and then be released on bail on terms fixed by that court. It also ordered circulation of the judgment to all Directors General of Police, Registrar Generals of High Courts, and Directors of State Judicial Academies.
The ruling is expected to have wide implications for narcotics investigations and custodial practices across India, reaffirming that procedural safeguards under the Constitution cannot be bypassed by delayed paperwork or investigative formalities.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - The 24 hours period for production before Magistrate commences from the time the liberty of the accused is first curtailed and he is detained by the investigating agency, and not from the later time of formal arrest shown in arrest memo - Any artificial distinction between detention and arrest is unconstitutional - Breach of Article 22(2) and unreasonable detention under Section 58 BNSS vitiate arrest and entitle accused to bail notwithstanding Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 57 CrPC, Section 167 CrPC, Sections 21(C), 22(C), 23(C), 25, 25A, 28, 29, 37, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52A, 67, 76 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Rule 3 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.
Sujit Das v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 3012796
