Illegal Detention Beyond 24 Hours Vitiates Arrest; Arrest Begins with Restraint, Not Paperwork: Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Release in NDPS Case Despite Formal Arrest Timing
Case Name: Anuj Kumar Singh v. Union of India
Date of Judgment: 16.04.2026
Citation: CRM-M-2979-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the 24-hour constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2) and Section 58 BNSS begins from the moment of actual restraint on liberty and not from the time recorded in the arrest memo. Detention beyond 24 hours without judicial authorization renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to release.
Summary: The petitioner challenged his arrest in an NDPS case on the ground that he was detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate, thereby violating Article 22 of the Constitution. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in an inter-state racket involving illegal diversion of psychotropic medicines through fictitious firms.
The core issue before the Court was whether the petitioner’s custody prior to formal arrest could be counted for computing the 24-hour period. The petitioner argued that he had been under continuous control of the NCB since the night of 31.10.2025, even though formal arrest was shown later. The prosecution contended that he had voluntarily accompanied the officials and was formally arrested only at 9:00 PM on 01.11.2025.
The Court undertook an extensive constitutional and jurisprudential analysis of “arrest” and “custody.” It held that arrest is not a mere formal declaration but a question of fact, dependent on whether the individual’s liberty has been restrained. The Court emphasized that labels such as “detention for inquiry” or “voluntary accompaniment” cannot defeat constitutional safeguards.
Relying on precedents, the Court held that custody includes any form of police control or restriction on movement. It further clarified that the time mentioned in the arrest memo is not conclusive and that the actual moment of restraint triggers the 24-hour rule.
On facts, the Court found that the petitioner was under continuous control of the NCB from about 10:45 PM on 31.10.2025 till his production before the Magistrate on 02.11.2025. The Court rejected the prosecution’s claim of voluntary accompaniment, noting that the surrounding circumstances indicated coercive custody.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner was detained beyond the permissible 24-hour period without judicial authorization, rendering the arrest illegal.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and declared the detention illegal. It directed the immediate release of the petitioner, subject to furnishing bonds, while clarifying that the observations would not affect the merits of the trial. The Court reaffirmed that violation of the 24-hour rule is a constitutional infraction that cannot be cured by subsequent remand orders.