NAVEEN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13177 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN
S/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O MASUVALLI VILLAGE
HALASULIGE POST
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI UTSAV GOWDA P.S, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ALDUR PS, REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU - 01.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI D
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N, SPP A/W
SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.155/2025
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 352,351(2),85,49,103 R/W 3(5) OF BNS
AND SEC.4 OF D.P ACT BEFORE RESPONDENT ALDUR P.S. PENDING
STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CR.NO.155/2025.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
28.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
CAV ORDER
1. This petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is filed by
accused no.1 with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in
S.C.No.98/2026 pending before the Court of II Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, arising out of Crime
No.155/2025 registered by Aldur Police Station,
Chikkamagaluru District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 352, 351(2), 85, 49, 103 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.155/2025 was registered by Aldur Police
Station, Chikkamagaluru District, for the aforesaid offences
against the petitioner and two others based on the first
information dated 12.10.2025 received from Shubha - mother
of deceased Netharavathi. In the said case, petitioner was
arrested on 14.10.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial
custody. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional
Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.159/2026 was rejected on
09.04.2026. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that the records would
reveal that petitioner was in custody of the police in the present
case from 11.00 a.m. on 14.10.2025 onwards. He was
produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.10.2025 at
5.45 p.m. Since the petitioner was not produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of his
arrest, his detention becomes illegal. There is violation of
Articles 21 & 22(2) of the Constitution of India, and therefore,
petitioner is entitled for bail as a matter of right. In support of
his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT VS SUBHASH SHARMA - 2025 INSC 141 , and in
the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of
BISWAJIT MANDAL VS INSPECTOR, NARCOTIC CONTROL
BUREAU, COCHIN (Bail Application No.8581/2025 disposed of
on 12.08.2025) .
5. Per contra, learned SPP who has opposed the bail
application, submits that petitioner had voluntarily appeared
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
before the police on 14.10.2025 at 11.00 a.m., but he was
arrested on the said date only at 9.45 p.m. Though petitioner
had voluntarily appeared before the police, he had not
cooperated for the purpose of investigation, and therefore, he
was not arrested immediately. He submits that merely for the
reason that petitioner was in the police station from 11.00 a.m.
on 14.10.2025, it cannot be said that he was arrested and was
in detention. In support of his arguments, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SUBHASHREE DAS ALIAS MILLI VS STATE OF ORISSA
& OTHERS - (2012)9 SCC 729 , and also on the judgment of the
High Court of Judicature of Bombay in the case of MANOHAR
SHARAD PATHARE VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(W.P.No.3221/2026 disposed of on 21.08.2026) . Accordingly,
he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The undisputed facts of the case are, FIR was registered
against the petitioner and his parents in the present case on
12.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 352,
351(2), 85, 49, 103 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, based on the
first information received from the mother of deceased
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
Nethravathi, who was the wife of the petitioner herein. During
the course of investigation of the said case, petitioner had
voluntarily surrendered before the police on 14.10.2025 at
about 11.00 a.m. He was shown as arrested in the present case
at 9.45 p.m. on 14.10.2025 and produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.10.2025 at 5.45 p.m.
7. Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which provides for
protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, reads
as under:
"22. Protection against arrest and detention in
certain cases. - (1) No person who is arrested shall be
detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be
denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a
legal practitioner of his choice.
(2). Every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate
within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest
excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no
such person shall be detained in custody beyond the
said period without the authority of a magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
(a) to any person who for the time being is an
enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained
under any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall
authorise the detention of a person for a longer period
than three months unless—
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who
are, or have been, or are qualified to be
appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported
before the expiration of the said period of three
months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause
for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause
shall authorise the detention of any person
beyond the maximum period prescribed by any
law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of
clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with
the provisions of any law made by Parliament
under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of
an order made under any law providing for preventive
detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon
as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on
which the order has been made and shall afford him the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against
the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the
authority making any such order as is referred to in that
clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to
be against the public interest to disclose.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe—
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class
or classes of cases in which, a person may be
detained for a period longer than three months
under any law providing for preventive detention
without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory
Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-
clause (a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person
may in any class or classes of cases be detained
under any law providing for preventive detention;
and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory
Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause
(4)."
8. Section 58 of BNSS, 2023, which is corresponding to
Section 57 of Cr.PC, provides that person arrested not to be
detained more than twenty-four hours. Section 58 of BNSS,
2023, reads as under:
" 58. Person arrested not to be detained more
than twenty-four hours.- No police officer shall
detain in custody a person arrested without warrant
for a longer period than under all circumstances of
the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in
the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under
section 187, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of
the time necessary for the journey from the place
of arrest to the Magistrate's Court, whether having
jurisdiction or not."
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
9. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that
every person who is arrested and detained in police custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period
of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court
of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in
custody beyond the said period without the authority of the
Magistrate.
10. Section 58 of BNSS, 2023, which is incorporated in terms
of the above Article, mandates that no police officer shall detain
a person in custody without warrant for a longer period than
under all the circumstances of the case was reasonable, and
such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a
Magistrate under Section 187, exceed twenty-four hours
excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of
arrest to the Court of Magistrate.
11. Section 43 of BNSS, 2023, which is corresponding to
Section 46 of Cr.PC, provides for power to arrest. Section 43 of
BNSS, 2023, reads as under:
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
" 43. Arrest how made.- (1) In making an
arrest the police officer or other person making the
same shall actually touch or confine the body of the
person to be arrested, unless there be a submission
to the custody word or action:
Provided that where a woman is to be
arrested, unless the circumstance indicate to the
contrary, her submission to custody on an oral
intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless
the circumstances otherwise require or unless the
police officer is a female, the police officer shall not
touch the person of the woman for making her
arrest.
(2) If such person forcibly resists the
endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the
arrest, such police officer or other person may use
all means necessary to effect the arrest.
(3) The police officer may, keeping in view
the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff
while making the arrest of a person or while
producing such person before the court who is a
habitual or repeat offender, or who escaped from
custody, or who has committed offence of
organised crime, terrorist act, drug related crime,
or illegal possession of arms and ammunition,
murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
and currency-notes, human trafficking, sexual
offence against childre, or offence against the
State.
(4) Nothing in this section gives a right to
cause the death of a person who is not accused of
an offence punishable with death or with
imprisonment for life.
(5) Save in exceptional circumstances, no
woman shall be arrested after sunset and before
sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstance
exist, the woman police officer shall by making a
written report, obtain the prior permission of the
Magistrate of the fir class within whose local
jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is
to be made."
12. In Biswajit Mandal's case supra, the High Court of Kerala,
in paragraph nos.15 & 16 has observed as under:
"15. ......... The erstwhile Section 46 of Cr.P.C.
was considered by the Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and Others v. Dinesh Kumar [(2008) 3
SCC 222} and after referring to an earlier decision,
observed that "the word 'arrest' when used in its
ordinary and natural sense, means the
apprehension or restraint or the deprivation of
one's personal liberty. The question whether the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
person is under arrest or not, depends not on the
legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been
deprived of his personal liberty to go where he
pleases."
16. In an earlier decision in Directorate of
Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Another
[(1994)3 SCC 440], the Supreme Court had
observed that "the word 'arrest' when used in its
ordinary and natural sense, means the
apprehension or restraint or the deprivation of
one's personal liberty. The question whether the
person is under arrest or not, depends not on the
legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been
deprived of his personal liberty to go wherever he
pleases. When used in the legal sense in connection
with criminal offences, an 'arrest' consists in the
taking into custody of another person under
authority empowered by law, for the purpose of
holding or detaining him to answer a criminal
charge or of preventing the commission of a
criminal offence. The essential elements to
constitute an arrest in the above sense are that
there must be an intent to arrest under the
authority, accompanied by seizure or detention of
the person in the manner known to law, which is so
understood by the person arrested.""
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
13. In the case of NIRANJAN SINGH & ANOTHER -
PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE & OTHERS - (1980)2 SCC
559) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.7, has
observed as under:
"7. When is a person in custody, within the
meaning of Section 439 CrPC? When he is in duress
either because he is held by the investigating agency or
other police or allied authority or is under the control of
the court having been remanded by judicial order, or
having offered himself to the court's jurisdiction and
submitted to its orders by physical presence."
14. The argument addressed by the learned SPP that accused
was formally detained for interrogation, but not actually
arrested, was considered in Niranjan Singh's case supra, and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"The equivocatory quibblings and hide and seek
niceties sometimes heard in court that the police
have taken a man into informal custody but not
arrested him, have detained him for interrogation
but not taken him into formal custody and other
like terminoligical dubieties are unfair evasions of
the straightforwardness of the law."
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
15. In the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS DEOMAN
UPADHYAYA - AIR 1960 SC 1125
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed as under:
"When a person not in custody approaches a police
officer investigating an offence and offers to give
information leading to the discovery of a fact,
having a bearing on the charge which may be made
against him, he may appropriately be deemed to
have surrendered himself to the police. Section 46
of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
contemplate any formality before a person can be
said to be taken in custody: submission to the
custody by word or action by a person is sufficient."
16. In Biswajit Mandal's case supra, the High Court of Kerala,
in paragraph nos.17 to 20, has observed as under:
"17. The etymological derivation of the word 'arrest'
is from the French term 'Arreter' meaning to stop or
stay'. The term denotes a restraint of the person.
Thus, whenever there is a complete restraint on the
freedom of movement or a person is held against
his interests in curtailment of his liberty by a
person in authority, it can be said that the said
person is under arrest. Actual restraint either by
word or action or conduct would suffice. When a
person is prevented by a person in authority from
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
engaging in his activities at his free will the former
can be said to have been arrested. The failure,
refusal or omission to record an arrest or
continuation of an interrogation for prolonged
periods without recording arrest, shall not preclude
those periods of curtailed liberty as constitution
arrest.
18. The Constitution mandates that the person
arrested be produced before the nearest Magistrate
within twenty-four hours of the arrest and other
that the time necessary to reach the court of the
Magistrate from the place of than the time
necessary to reach the court of the Magistrate from
the place of arrest, there is a peremptory
prohibition that the person arrested shall not be
detained beyond the said period without the
authority of the Magistrate.
19. The above views are fortified by the decisions of
the Bombay High Court in Hanumant Jagganath
Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra [2025 SCC
Online 2508] and in Ashak Hussain Allah Detha
@ Siddique and Another v. Assistant Collector
of Customs [1990 SCC Online Bom 3] and thatof
the Telengana High Court in Smt. T Ramadevi v.
The State of Telengana [W.P. No.21912/2024].
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
20. 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."
17. In the case of ASHAK HUSSAIN ALLAH DETHA @
SIDDIQUE & ANOTHER VS THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF
CUSTOMS (P) BOMBAY & ANOTHER - 1990 SCC OnLine Bom 3 ,
the Bombay High Court, in paragraph 10 has observed as
under:
"10. It is thus clear that arrest being a restraint on
the personal liberty, it is complete when such
restraint by an authority, commences. [The Law
Lexicon-P. Ramanatha Aiyar Reprint Edition 1987,
page 85.] Whether a person is arrested or not does
not depend on the legality of the act. It is enough if
an authority clothed with the power to arrest,
actually imposes the restraint by physical act or
words. Whether a person is arrested depends on
whether he has been deprived of his personal
liberty to go where he pleases. [Section 37(1) of
the N.O.P.S. Act.] It stands to reason, therefore,
that what label the Investigating Officer affixes to
his act of restraint is irrelevent. For the same
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
reason, the record of the time of arrest is not an
index to the actual time of arrest, The arrest
commences with the restraint placed on the liberty
of the accused and not with the time of "arrest"
recorded by the Arresting Officers."
18. In the case of MRS. IQBAL KAUR KWATRA VS THE DIST.
GENERAL OF POLICE, RAJASTHAN STATE, JAIPUR - 1996(1)
A.P.L.J. 370 (HC) , in paragraph no.19, has observed as under:
"19. It is well settled that "police custody" does not
necessarily mean custody after formal arrests. It
also includes "some form of police surveillance and
restriction on the movements of the person
concerned by the police". The word "custody" does
not necessarily mean detention or confinement. A
person is in custody as soon as he comes into the
hands of a police officer."
19. The provisions of BNSS, 2023, do not authorize detention
of accused by the police beyond 24 hours of arrest. Sections
57, 58 & 187(1) of BNSS, 2023, which are corresponding to
Sections 60, 61 & 167(1) of Cr.PC., respectively, conjointly
provide that unless a police officer considers that he can
complete the investigation within a period of twenty-four hours,
it is his duty to produce the accused forthwith before a
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
Magistrate. A police officer cannot detain any person in custody
without arresting him and any such detention will amount to
wrongful confinement within the meaning of Section 340 of IPC.
Actual arrest and detention do not appear to be necessary. A
person in custody cannot be detained without producing him
before a Magistrate under the colourable pretension that no
actual arrest is made.
20. In Subhashree Das Alias Milli's case supra, the accused
had claimed compenstion on the ground that she was detained
beyond the period of 24 hours after her arrest. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the said case, had held that since disputed questions of facts
were involved, the High Court was not justified in exercise of its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in arriving
at a conclusion that the accused was detained beyond 24 hours
after her arrest and granting compensation. It is under these
circumstances, the order passed by the High Court was set
aside. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having
regard to Section 57 of Cr.PC also observed that the travel time
from the place the accused was arrested to the Court of
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
Magistrate is also required to be excluded and it is under the
said circumstances, it was held that it cannot be said that the
accused had remained in detention well beyond 24 hours from
her arrest till she was produced before the Court of Magistrate.
21. In the present case, FIR was registered against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS,
2023, on 12.10.2025. He had voluntarily surrendered before
the police on 14.10.2025 at 11.00 a.m. and ever since then, he
was in custody. It is not the case of the prosecution that if the
travel time from the police station to the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate is taken into consideration, the petitioner was
produced well within 24 hours from the time he was under
detention.
22. In Manohar Sharad Pathare's case supra, the Bombay
High Court taking into consideration that the accused who had
appeared before the police in response to the inquiry notice
received by him, could not be inquired by the police because
the Investigation Officer was involved in another investigation
where the accused in the said case had suffered health issues
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
and was taken to the hospital and also taking consideration
that the accused was in touch with others over phone when he
was in police station, has observed that the same is a
distinguished feature as far as the said case is concerned, and
held that it cannot be accepted that the moment the detenue
stepped into the police station he was under arrest.
23. The same is not the situation in the present case. Though
learned SPP has produced CDR of the petitioner's phone to
show that petitioner was in possession of a phone while in the
police station, undisputedly he had not made any phone calls
after he had surrendered before the police nor had he received
any phone calls. Therefore, the judgment in Manohar Sharad
Pathare's case supra, cannot be made applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
24. In the case of ANUJ KUMAR SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA -
2026 SCC OnLine P&H 5458 , in paragraph nos.11 & 12, it is
observed as under:
"11. In cases of arrest by a police
officer/investigating agency, otherwise than by way of
execution of a warrant, one such safeguard, requiring
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
production of individual detained, before the nearest
Magistrate, within a reasonable time and by the latest
within twenty four hours of arrest, stands as the primary
bulwark against the dark peril of incommunicado
detention. As observed by the Supreme Court in Manoj
(supra) that the police officer arresting the individual
cannot obviate this legal obligation as statutorily
mandated. This procedural exigency, enshrined in
Section 57 CrPC/Section 58 of the BNSS and anchored
in the bedrock of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, is
designed to facilitate an instantaneous judicial audit of
the executive's action. The procedural mandate
contained in Section 57 CrPC/Section 58 BNSS/Artcile
22(2) of the Constitution serves a dual, sacrosanct
purpose : firstly, to verify the vires and legality of the
arrest; and secondly, to submit the necessity of further
detention for judicial scrutiny. However, for this
Constitutional shield to be effective, the law must
resolve a question of profound temporal significance :
What should be the terminus a quo for computation of
twenty-four-hour limit?; which requires for us to
determine the meaning of “arrest” as employed in
Section 57 CrPC/Section 58 BNSS/Article 22(2) of the
Constitution.
11.1. The term “arrest” is neither defined in the
CrPC/BNSS nor in the constitutional framework;
however, when interpreted in its ordinary and natural
sense, it signifies a state of apprehension, restraint or
the total deprivation of an individual's liberty. The
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
dictionary meaning of “arrest” as contained in different
dictionaries, reads thus:
The Oxford Dictionary (online) defines custody as
imprisonment, detention, confinement, incarceration,
internment, captivity; remand, duress, and durance.
Chambers Dictionary (online) clarifies that custody is
“the condition of being held by the police; arrest or
imprisonment; to take someone into custody to arrest
them.”
Chambers Thesaurus supplies several synonyms, such
as detention, confinement, imprisonment, captivity,
arrest, formal incarceration.
The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advance
Learners states in terms of that someone who is in
custody or has been taken into custody or has been
arrested and is being kept in prison until they get tried
in a court or if someone is being held in a particular type
of custody, they are being kept in a place that is similar
to a prison.
The Corpus Juris Secundum under the topic of
Escape & Related Offenses; Rescue adumbrates that
“Custody, within the meaning of statutes defining the
crime, consists of the detention or restraint of a person
against his or her will, or of the exercise of control over
another to confine the other person within certain
physical limits or a restriction of ability or freedom of
movement.”
This is how Custody is dealt with in Black's Law
Dictionary (5th Edn. 2009):
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
Custody - The care and control of a thing or person. The
keeping, guarding, care, watch, inspection, preservation
or security of a thing, carrying with it the idea of the
thing being within the immediate personal care and
control of the person to whose custody it is subjected.
Immediate charge and control, and not the final,
absolute control of ownership, implying responsibility for
the protection and preservation of the thing in custody.
Also the detainer of a mans person by virtue of lawful
process or authority.
Ergo, the term “arrest” is a term of art
representing a state of affairs where an individual's
autonomy is subsumed under the control and
supervision of an authority acting under the colour of
law. For the purposes of Section 57 CrPC/58
BNSS/Article 22(2), whether an individual has been
“arrested” or not, depends upon the factual imposition
of restraint through physical acts or verbal commands.
The quintessential test remains one of volition : whether
the individual has been deprived of his/her personal
liberty to move where he/she pleases? As observed by a
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
Iqbal Kaur Kwatra (supra) that the term does not
necessarily mean custody after formal arrest but also
includes some form of surveillance/restriction on the
movement by the police. It is thus clear that “arrest”
being a restrain on the personal liberty, it is complete
when such restraint by the authority commences. The
moment some form of police surveillance and restriction
on the movements of the individual concerned by the
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
police/investigating agency begins, he is said to have
been arrested and detained in custody. An “arrest” is
crystallized the moment the individual's ambulatory
providence is extinguished and his volition is subsumed
by the coercive power of authority detaining him.
11.2. Consequently; the nomenclature assigned
by the investigating agency, such as; “detention for
questioning”, “custody for inquiry” or similar expression
is wholly immaterial and legally irrelevant for the
purposes of determining whether the individual has been
arrested or not and rather weightage has to be given to
the factual aspects of the matter as have truly
transpired. The time recorded in the arrest memo or
other police records is a mere procedural formality that
cannot be treated as a definitive or infallible index of
actual time of arrest. To grant such records a status of
absolute verity would be to allow the concerned
authorities (investigating agency) to act as the sole
auditor of its own compliance, thereby reducing a
constitutional safeguard to a matter of administrative
whim. 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 record is merely a post
facto declaration; it is the de facto restraint that triggers
the clock of liberty. Pertinently, in Niranjan Singh
(supra) the Supreme Court pointed out this prevalent
practice of using of disingenuous subtitles and linguistic
evasions by the investigating agency whereby an effort
is made to distinguish between informal detention and
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
statutory arrest/preliminary inquiry and de facto
custody. These are hollow terminological conceits.
Having said so, lest the above analysis be
perceived as an absolute embargo upon the
investigative functions of the State, this Court must
hasten to offer a necessary caveat. A clear distinction
must be carved out between the coercive subsumption
of volition and the genuine investigative functions. There
are instances where an individual is summoned for
merely joining investigation, production of documents,
recording of statement. In such instances, where there
is no palpable fetter upon the ambulatory providence of
the individual and he remains at liberty to depart the
precincts of the police station at his own will; retains
unhindered access to his mobile phone to communicate
with the world at large; and may be accompanied by
friends and legal acquaintances, it cannot be termed as
coercive detention. In such like cases/circumstances, it
would be a legal misconception to suggest that the clock
of liberty has commenced. The twenty-four-hour
mandate is not a reflexive trap for a diligent
investigating officer, but a shield against overbearing
captor.
11.3. It is a settled principle of jurisprudence that
while interpreting provisions that intend to safeguard
fundamental human rights, the Court must adopt a Pro
Homine approach. A narrow and pedantic interpretation
of “arrest” would not merely be a legal error; it would be
a constitutional apostasy. It would defeat the very
purpose of the provision, which is to prevent
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
clandestine/illegal detentions. It would tantamount to
condoning an illegality that perpetuates under the colour
of authority and granting the concerned authorities a
temporal immunity to operate in a vacuum where the
individual detained is neither free nor yet under the
protective aegis of statutory safeguards. Such a vacuum
is abhorred by the law as the same is antithetical for a
system governed by the Rule of Law.
Ergo, for the twenty-four-hour mandate, as
provided under Section 57 CrPC/58 BNSS/Article 22(2)
of the Constitution, it must be reckoned from the exact
moment of physical deprivation of personal liberty, for
any delay beyond this window, however, seemingly
minute, constitutes a constitutional trespass that the law
cannot and must not condone. As observed by the
Bombay High Court Ashak Hussain Allah Detha (supra) it
and the Telangana High Court in T. Ramadevi (supra),
the period of twenty-four hours is not to be computed
from the official time of arrest as shown in the arrest
memo but from the time, actual restraint was put upon
the individual's volition to move.
It goes without saying that it is neither pragmatic
nor feasible to lay any universal exhaustive yardstick or
inexorable set of guidelines for adjudication of this
aspect as every case has its own unique factual
conspectus, which has to be taken into account by the
Court which is seisin of the mater in question. It was
said by Lord Denning, an observation which met with
approval by the Supreme Court, that:
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
“…..Each case depends on its own facts, and a
close similarity between one case and another is
not enough, because even a single significant
detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding
such case, one should avoid the temptation to
decide case (As saidby Cardozo) by matching the
colour of one case against the colour of another.
To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a
case falls, its broad resemblance to another case
is not all decisive.”
It must be underscored that the mandate
enshrined under Section 57 CrPC/Section 58
BNSS/Article 22(2) is not a surplusage of legal prose;
rather a peremptory command, and the violation thereof
cannot be cured by the subsequent passing of remand
order. As observed by the Supreme Court in Subhash
Sharma (supra), in such like cases, the arrest itself
stands vitiated and the individual concerned, deserves
to be enlarged on bail.
11.4. This court must hasten to add a word of
caution herein.
The duty of the Magistrate or court, before whom
an arrestee is produced is not a mere ministerial act of
recording presence, but a solemn, judicial interrogation
of the arresting authority's narrative. The
Magistrate/court concerned must act as the sentinel on
the qui vive; recognizing that the production of the
accused is a jurisdictional gateway designed to bring the
coercive power of arresting authority under direct
judicial scrutiny. It is incumbent upon the concerned
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
Court/Magistrate to proactively pierce the veil of
documentation and look past the self-serving entries
contained in the police record to identify the actual
terminus a quo of the detention, which requires
pragmatic and rigorous examination of the factual
substratum of the arrest, stripping away any
administrative curtain that the investigating agency may
have drawn to mask a prior de facto apprehension. The
Magistrate/Court concerned is duty bound to inquire into
the where, when and how of the capture to ensure that
twilight zone of illegal detention is not regularized
through sanitized police record/arrest memo.
12. As a sequitur to the above rumination, the
following postulates emerge:
(i) The twenty-four-hour period under Section 57
CrPC/Section 58 BNSS begins from exact moment
of physical arrest. The clock of liberty begins the
moment an individual's volition is subsumed by
the arresting authority's coercive power and
he/she is no longer free to depart, regardless of
when a formal declaration is made.
(ii) There is no straight-jacket formula for
determining the moment of arrest as it is a
question of fact that depends upon the
facts/circumstances of a particular case, including
but not limited to, whether the individual
concerned was kept in the police station/office of
the investigating agency overnight, whether such
individual had freedom to get his own food, etc.
whether the individual was freely permitted to
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
meet his friend(s)/relative(s), whether the
petitioner could leave the police station/office of
the investigating agency on his own discretion,
etc. No universal guidelines or parameters can
possibly be enumerated for this exercise of power
by the Magistrate/concerned Court as every case
has its own unique factual conspectus.
(iii) Entry(s) contained in police records or arrest
memos are merely declaratory and do not
constitute infallible or conclusive proof of the time
of arrest.
(iv) 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."
25. Even in the case of Anuj Kumar Singh, a contention was
raised that the detenue was in possession of his mobile phone,
and therefore, it cannot be said that his movements were
restricted and he was under detention. Answering the said
contention, in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it is observed
as under:
"From the totality of factual milieu of the case in
hand; especially the prosecution narrative of the
petitioner having accompanied the NCB team from
Dehradun to Chandigarh in an NCB vehicle; the
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
petitioner remaining continuously with NCB officials from
about 10.45 p.m. on 31-10-2025 till preparation of
arrest memo at 09.00 p.m. on 1-11-2025; the
petitioner, even if having access to his mobile phone as
stated by the NCB, but not calling any of the
friend(s)/relative(s)/lawyer to the NCB office; does,
indubitably, reflect that the petitioner was actually in
coercive custody of NCB right from about 10.45 p.m. on
31-10-2025. It is, thus, clear that preparation of arrest
memo of the petitioner at about 09.00 p.m. on 1-11-
2025 is merely a paper transaction. Since this Court has
found that the petitioner was in coercive NCB detention
since at about 11.00 p.m. on 31-10-2025 till about
02.00 p.m. on 2-12-2025 (when he was produced
before the concerned Court), arrest/detention of the
petitioner is clearly beyond the prescribed period in
Section 58 of BNSS, 2023 which renders his
arrest/custody illegal."
26. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for
protection of life and personal liberty of a person. Article 22
provides for protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases. Arrest and detention violative of Article 22 would infringe
the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Courts being the guardian of rights
guaranteed to a person under the Constitution of India are
required to strictly uphold the same notwithstanding the gravity
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
of offence or the rigor provided for grant of bail under certain
special enactments.
27. In the present case, petitioner was in the police station
from 11.00 a.m. on 14.10.2025 till he was produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.10.2025 at 5.45 p.m. His
movements and personal liberty were restricted to the four
corners of the police station. His liberty to go where he pleases
was effectively curtailed. Detention for the purpose of
interrogation is unknown to law. Arrest commences with the
restraint placed on the liberty of the accused and not with the
time of arrest recorded by the police officer. Right to liberty is
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
Courts are required to protect the same. If the Courts fail to
check these wrongs, the detention prior to recording of formal
arrest can be the source of human rights violations. The liberty
of the petitioner was effectively curtailed from 11.00 a.m. on
14.10.2025 and from that period onwards he was under the
control and authority of the police. The period of twenty four
hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate commences
from the time when the accused was detained or his liberty was
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
curtailed, and not from the time of arrest as recorded by the
police. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that
the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced
before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest,
excluding the time of journey from the place of arrest to the
court of nearest Magistrate. Article 22(3) provides for two
contingencies in which the said mandate be obviated. One is
when the person arrested is an "enemy alien" and other is
when the arrest is under any law providing for preventive
detention.
28. Learned SPP has fairly submitted that in the case diary,
there is no such mention why the petitioner was not
interrogated immediately after he had surrendered before the
police and why he was shown as arrested only at 9.45 p.m. on
14.10.2025. Therefore, it can be clearly said that petitioner was
not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24
hours from the time he was detained, and therefore, his
detention becomes illegal and arrest gets vitiated. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner is required to
be enlarged on bail subject to the principles laid down by the
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JASKARAN JEET SINGH
DEOL VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1939
, by
imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following
order:
29. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be
enlarged on bail in S.C.No.98/2026 pending before the Court of
II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, arising out
of Crime No.155/2025 registered by Aldur Police Station,
Chikkamagaluru District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 352, 351(2), 85, 49, 103 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the
following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the
likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court;
b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all
the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless
the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid
reasons;
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60797
CRL.P No. 13177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010592902026
c) The petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution
witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar
offences in future;
e) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission
of the said Court until the case registered against
him is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK