Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: In a petition challenging the legality of arrest and continued detention in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (NDPS), a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., held that the constitutional and statutory mandate of producing an arrested person before the Magistrate within 24 hours begins from the moment of actual restraint on personal liberty and not from the time of formal arrest shown in records. Consequently, the Court declared the detention beyond 24 hours illegal and directed the petitioner’s release.
Background
The case arose from a Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) investigation into illegal diversion of psychotropic medicines, wherein the petitioner, a partner in certain pharmaceutical firms, was alleged to be involved in inter-State diversion through entities not existing physically. On 31 October 2025, a search was conducted at the petitioner’s premises and a notice under Section 67 NDPS Act, was served. The petitioner accompanied the NCB officials from Uttarakhand to Chandigarh at around 11.00 p.m. on 31 October 2025 and remained with them until his formal arrest was recorded at 9.00 p.m. on 1 November 2025, after which on 2 November 2025 his medical examination was done and then was produced before the Magistrate.
NCB subsequently, filed remand applications pleading police/judicial remand of the petitioner and since then the petitioner was in judicial custody. Thus, the petitioner contended that he had been in continuous custody since the night of 31 October 2025 and was detained beyond 24 hours without judicial authorisation, rendering his arrest illegal.
Issue
Whether the petitioner’s detention exceeded the permissible 24-hour limit, and whether such period is to be computed from the time of actual restraint/custody or from the formal arrest recorded by the investigating agency.
Analysis and decision
The Court observed the power of police to investigate offences is statutory and delegated to maintain public order while the procedural law equips investigating agencies with powers such as search, seizure, and arrest, these are not absolute and are circumscribed by safeguards, designed to ensure that the sword of the State does not become an instrument of oppression. The Court stated, investigative powers must be exercised strictissimi juris, i.e., strictly in accordance with the procedure and conditions prescribed by law.
The Court noted that in cases of arrest without warrant, a key safeguard mandates that the detained person be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, serving as a protection against incommunicado detention. Enshrined in Section 57, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)/Section 58, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Article 22(2) of the Constitution, this requirement ensures immediate judicial scrutiny of executive action, both to verify the vires and the legality of arrest and secondly to assess the need for further detention. For this safeguard to be effective, it is essential to determine when the 24-hour period begins, which depends on the true meaning of “arrest” under these provisions.
The Court observed the term “arrest” is neither defined in the CrPC/BNSS nor in the constitutional framework, however in ordinary interpretation, it signifies a state of apprehension, restraint or total deprivation of an individual’s liberty. The Court noted for determining arrest for the purposes of Section 57 CrPC/Section 58 BNSS/Article 22(2), the quintessential test is whether the individual’s freedom to move at will has been curtailed.
The Court noted, “whether an individual is under ‘arrest’ is a question of fact, not of nomenclature. To hold otherwise would be to allow the Rule of Law to be defeated by a semantic sleight of hand”. The Court also noted, “entries contained in police records or arrest memos are merely declaratory and do not constitute infallible or conclusive proof of the time of arrest.” . Treating it as definitive would allow the investigating agency to judge its own compliance, undermining constitutional safeguards. It is the actual restraint on liberty, not the recorded time, that triggers the 24-hour clock or the clock of liberty.
Drawing the distinction between coercive subsumption of volition and genuine investigative functions, the Court noted that there are instances where a person is merely summoned to join investigation, for producing documents or recording a statement. However, without any obvious restriction and the person remains free to leave, has unhindered access to a phone, and acts without restraint, it does not amount to detention. In such situations, the clock of liberty is not triggered. The Court stated, “the 24-hour mandate is not a reflexive trap for a diligent investigating officer, but a shield against overbearing captor”.
The Court noted that the Magistrate/Court before which the arrestee/detained person is produced bears a non-delegable solemn duty to act proactively piercing the documentary veil of the timeline provided by the arresting authority.
Observing the overall facts, particularly that the petitioner accompanied the NCB from Dehradun to Chandigarh, remained continuously with officials from 31 October 2025 till the arrest memo at 9.00 p.m. on 1 November 2025, and not contacting any friend, relative, or lawyer despite access to his phone, the Court noted it is evident that he was in coercive custody from 31 October 2025. The arrest memo was thus a mere paper formality. As he remained in such custody till his production before the Court on 2 November 2025 at 2.00 p.m., the detention exceeded the 24-hour limit under Section 58 BNSS,. Thus, the Court declared the detention illegal and directed that the petitioner be released from custody, if not required in any other case, upon furnishing appropriate bonds.
[Anuj Kumar Singh v. Union of India, CRM-M-2979-2026 (O&M), decided on 16-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate, Rahil Mahajan, Kadambari Bhan, Lovejeet Poonia, Advocate
For the respondent: Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor, Deify Jindal, Anju Bansal, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
