Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the statutory twenty-four-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate commences from the moment the accused is effectively detained or his liberty is curtailed, and not from the formal recording of the arrest. The court directed the release of the petitioner on bail after finding that the accused had been kept in unrecorded custody beyond the permissible period, thereby constituting illegal detention. Conditions for bail were imposed, including execution of bond, cooperation with the investigation, restrictions on travel, and prohibition against influencing witnesses or committing similar offences.

The proceedings arose from Crime No. 2 of 2025 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Cochin Zonal Unit, for alleged offences under section 8(c) read with section 20(b)(ii)(C), section 28, and section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution case stated that on 25 January 2025, the accused was allegedly found in possession of 26.92 kg of ganja at platform No. 3 of Ernakulam Junction Railway Station.

Also Read: Demand And Acceptance Is A Sine Qua Non | Supreme Court Acquits One Accused In ₹500 Bribe Trap For Lack Of Connivance Evidence, Cuts VAO’s Sentence To Statutory Minimum

The petitioner had been in custody since 26 January 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrest was vitiated by failure to communicate the grounds for arrest and that the petitioner had been detained beyond the permissible twenty-four-hour limit without production before a magistrate. It was contended that the petitioner was taken into custody at 3:00 p.m. on 25 January 2025, but his arrest was recorded only at 2:00 p.m. on 26 January 2025, with production before the magistrate occurring at 8:00 p.m. the same day.

The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that seizure concluded by 7:00 p.m. on 25 January 2025, arrest occurred at 2:00 p.m. on 26 January 2025, and production before the magistrate was at 8:00 p.m., all within twenty-four hours from the arrest.

The court noted that due to the importance of the legal question, two law interns, Ms. Nikhina Thomas and Ms. Neha Babu, present in court, were appointed as Amici Curiae. They submitted that the twenty-four-hour limit begins from the time of effective curtailment of liberty, not the formal arrest, and argued that there had been an unrecorded period of custody constituting illegal detention. They relied upon decisions including D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas recorded that the central question was whether the twenty-four-hour period under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the formal arrest or from effective detention. The court observed: "Law has to apply equally for all. No man is above the law and none are below it either. Even the most notorious criminal is entitled to be treated with fairness and justice." The court cited precedent recognising that the time limit is tied to curtailment of liberty, not mere formalities.

The court referred to Joginder Kumar, noting: "The quality of a nation's civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law." It also cited D.K. Basu: "Worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation... by either not recording the arrest or describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a prolonged interrogation."

In analysing statutory provisions, the court noted that section 43 of the BNSS provides for arrest by actual touching or confinement, unless submission to custody occurs. Relying on decisions such as Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, the court stated: "The equivocatory quibblings and hide and seek niceties sometimes heard in court... are unfair evasions of the straightforwardness of the law."

Also Read: Kerala HC Grants Bail To Accused In Alleged False NDPS Case Against Beautician | Arrest Vitiated For Not Communicating Grounds

The court concluded: "Hence the period of twenty-four hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police, but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed."

The court directed the release of the petitioner on bail. It ordered that the petitioner execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The petitioner must cooperate with the trial, appear before the investigating officer as required, refrain from intimidating or influencing witnesses, avoid tampering with evidence, and not commit similar offences while on bail. He must not leave the State of Kerala without permission from the jurisdictional court. The court empowered the jurisdictional court to modify or delete conditions as appropriate.

The court also recorded appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amici Curiae.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Smt. N.B. Fathima Sulfath, Advocate

For the Respondent: Shri. R. Vinu Raj, Special Public Prosecutor, Narcotics Control Bureau; Shri. K.K. Subeesh

Amici Curiae: Ms. Nikhina Thomas, Ms. Neha Babu

Case Title: BISWAJIT MANDAL Vs. INSPECTOR, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:60624

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 8581 OF 2025

Bench: JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS