Constitutional Right to Be Produced Before Magistrate Within 24-Hours is Not Absolute if Delay is Explained.

A crime (Crime No.43 of 2025) was registered against the petitioner/accused No.2 for offenses punishable under Sections 55, 103(1), and 3(5) of the BNS, following allegations that he conspired with accused No.1 to murder her husband and executed the act on the night of May 23, 2025.

The petitioner was apprehended at Kachinakatte Bus Stop, Shivamogga, at 3:30 PM on May 25, 2025.

He was taken to the N.R. Pura Police Station at 4:45 PM on the same day and officially arrested at 5:00 PM after drawing up a detailed arrest panchanama.

The grounds for arrest and reasons for arrest were furnished to the petitioner and his father.

The petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate at 5:25 PM on May 26, 2025.

A charge sheet was filed, and the petitioner's application for regular bail, citing non-production within 24 hours, was rejected on December 11, 2025.

The petitioner then filed the current petition seeking to quash the remand order and his release on the same ground.

1. Whether the petitioner/accused No.2 should be set at liberty on the score that he has not been produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.

The court applied Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that every arrested person 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.

It also considered Section 58 of the BNSS (formerly Section 57 of the Cr.P.C.), which similarly prohibits a police officer from detaining an arrested person without warrant for more than twenty-four hours, excluding travel time, without a special order from a Magistrate.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in MANOJ v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [(1999) 3 SCC 715] and ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR [(2014) 8 SCC 273], reinforcing that the journey time to produce the accused before the Magistrate is to be excluded from the 24-hour computation.

Additionally, the court noted the principles from GOURI SHANKAR JHA v. STATE OF BIHAR [(1972) 1 SCC 564] and KHATRI (2) v. STATE OF BIHAR [(1981) 1 SCC 627] emphasizing the legislative policy of bringing an arrested person before a Magistrate with as little delay as possible.

The court analyzed the timeline of the petitioner's apprehension and production before the Magistrate.

It noted that the petitioner was apprehended at 3:30 PM on May 25, 2025, and officially arrested at 5:00 PM on the same day.

He was then produced before the learned Magistrate at 5:25 PM on May 26, 2025.

The court calculated the "delay" as 25 minutes if counted from the official arrest, or one hour and fifty-five minutes if counted from the time he was originally picked up.

Applying Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the BNSS, along with the precedents from the Apex Court, the court stated that the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate is to be excluded from the 24-hour period.

The prosecution explained that the delay occurred because the regular jurisdictional Magistrate was on leave, necessitating presentation before an in-charge Magistrate, and some travel time was involved.

The court found this explanation acceptable, deeming the delay of 25 minutes (from official arrest) as not fatal, especially considering potential travel time or confusion regarding the competent court.

The court also noted that the Session Court had already considered and rejected the petitioner's plea based on these grounds, including the presented Google Maps evidence, when denying regular bail.

The court held that non-production of the accused within the mandatory time, in certain circumstances, does not vitiate the proceedings if the delay is explained and acceptable.

Therefore, the criminal petition was dismissed.