Producing an arrestee within 24 hours is not enough; police must take him to the nearest Magistrate, Bombay High Court rules

The Petitioner was arrested at Barshi, District Solapur, in connection with an FIR registered at Kashigaon Police Station under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The police took him from Barshi to Kashigaon and produced him before the jurisdictional Magistrate at Mira Road, rather than before a Magistrate at or near Barshi.

The State maintained that he was produced within 24 hours of arrest.

1. Whether an arrested person taken into custody at Barshi had to be produced before the nearest Magistrate there, rather than taken directly to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the Kashigaon case, notwithstanding production within 24 hours.

2. Whether the failure to produce the Petitioner before the nearest Magistrate rendered his detention unlawful and entitled him to relief.

3. Whether the investigating agency could take steps to re-arrest the Petitioner if necessary, and subject to what safeguards.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Sections 57, 58 and 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were applied as safeguards requiring an arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period; production within 24 hours before a different, jurisdictional Magistrate does not by itself satisfy the nearest-Magistrate requirement.

Relying on Vachhalabai v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2937, the Court held that taking an arrested person away from the place of arrest without production before the nearest Magistrate makes the ensuing detention unauthorized and illegal; later production before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the offence does not cure the breach.

The Court also referred to Shakoor Ahmed Jamaluddin Sayed v. State of Maharashtra and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab in considering the possibility of re-arrest in accordance with law and the applicable Supreme Court guidelines.

The Court treated Barshi as the place of arrest and held that the investigating agency was required to produce the Petitioner before the nearest Magistrate there.

The State’s reliance on production within 24 hours before the Mira Road Magistrate did not answer the distinct requirement of production before the nearest Magistrate.

Applying Vachhalabai, the Court concluded that taking the Petitioner from Barshi to Kashigaon without such production violated the applicable safeguards and made his detention unlawful.

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the Court permitted the agency to pursue re-arrest only if absolutely necessary and in accordance with law and the guidelines in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol.

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Petitioner’s release on bail upon execution of a personal-recognizance bond of ₹50,000 with one or two sureties for the like amount.

Bail was subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, periodic attendance at the police station and deposit of any passport.

The investigating agency could take steps to re-arrest him only if absolutely necessary and in accordance with law and the specified Supreme Court guidelines.