Karnataka HC Orders Release Of Man Produced 30 Hours After Apprehension, If Not Required In Another Case

The petitioner was apprehended in Delhi at 11:00 a.m. on 14 May 2026 and produced before a Magistrate at 5:00 p.m. the following day

He sought to set aside the transit warrant and the initial and subsequent remand orders arising from Crime No. 92/2026, contending that his detention exceeded the constitutional 24-hour limit

The State argued, among other things, that he had failed to disclose an earlier bail petition, which had been withdrawn without liberty to file afresh

Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires a detained person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of detention, excluding only the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court.

In Sri Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that this period begins when the person’s liberty is curtailed, not at the time of formal arrest; detention beyond that period requires forthwith release, and the Magistrate must examine the actual time of detention and compliance with the deadline

The Supreme Court also addressed the requirement under Section 58 of the BNSS that detention not exceed a reasonable period

Applying Sujit Das, the Court treated the petitioner’s apprehension at 11:00 a.m. as the start of the 24-hour period, rather than the time of any formal arrest.

Because he was produced at 5:00 p.m. the next day, the Court held that his detention beyond 24 hours was per se illegal

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner should have disclosed the earlier bail petition, but held that the omission did not bar relief on the distinct ground of unlawful detention; it nevertheless disapproved of his failure to disclose it

The State remained at liberty to take such action as advised in law if his custody was required for justifiable reasons