24-hour deadline to produce accused before magistrate starts from moment of detention: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate for remand begins from the moment their liberty is curtailed through detention, and not from the time the investigating agency formally records the arrest.

A Bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar, while hearing the case of Sujit Das v. Union of India, further held that a person detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate must be released from custody immediately, Bar and Bench reported.

Key takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling

1. The 24-hour constitutional deadline begins from the moment of actual detention, rather than the formal recording of arrest.

2. If a person is detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate, they must be released immediately.

3. Only the time reasonably required to travel to the magistrate's court can be excluded from the 24-hour period.

4. The Constitution does not permit an artificial distinction between detention and formal arrest to circumvent constitutional safeguards.

5. Investigating agencies cannot claim any additional period for investigation outside the 24-hour limit prescribed under Article 22(2).

6. Even detention within the 24-hour limit must satisfy the reasonableness requirement under Section 58 of the BNSS.

7. Magistrates must record the actual date and time of detention and independently verify whether the requirements of Article 22(2) have been complied with.

8. Magistrates can decline to grant remand if the period of detention is found to be unreasonable, even when it does not exceed 24 hours.

The Supreme Court delivered the ruling in a case involving a man accused of drug smuggling, who was detained on the afternoon of September 29, 2025, but whose formal arrest was recorded only on September 30, 2025.

The accused contended that the investigating agency had deliberately delayed recording his arrest to circumvent the 24-hour constitutional deadline under Article 22(2) for producing an arrested person before a magistrate. The investigating agency, however, argued that the 24-hour period began only when the arrest was formally recorded on September 30.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held that such an approach was impermissible and clarified that the 24-hour period begins the moment a person's liberty is curtailed through detention, irrespective of when the investigating agency formally records the arrest.

"Clause (2) of Article 22 does not sanction creation of a zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigative purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such a buffer zone is unconstitutional," the Court held.