Sujit Das v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 5 November 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 1195
The Court held that the 24 hours under Article 22(2) run from the moment a person's liberty is curtailed, not from the recorded time of formal arrest, and directed bail for NDPS accused produced late before the magistrate.
Facts
Customs officers of the Divisional Preventive Force, Agartala, acting on secret information, intercepted a truck and a motorcyclist at about 02:00 pm on 29.09.2025 and recovered methamphetamine (Yaba) tablets. More tablets were recovered at the Customs Division office, the search and seizure ending at 05:00 pm that day; the total was 60.79 kg. The accused were shown formally arrested at 11:00 am and 11:15 am on 30.09.2025 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 04:45 pm that day. The Special Judge and the High Court of Tripura refused bail, the High Court relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the 24 hours ran from interception. The respondent argued that time spent on statutory search, seizure and inventory formalities before formal arrest was outside the 24 hours.
Questions before the Court
- From when does the 24 hours period under Article 22(2) of the Constitution run: from the time a person's liberty is curtailed or from the recorded time of formal arrest?
- Can the time taken to comply with search, seizure and inventory procedures under the NDPS Act and the Rules of 2022 be excluded from the 24 hours?
- Were the appellants' arrest and detention in breach of Article 22(2) and Section 58 BNSS (Section 57 CrPC), and were they entitled to release?
What the Court held
- The expression 'arrested and detained in custody' in Article 22(2) is conjunctive and the two words mean the same thing, since the Constitution does not recognise detention apart from arrest. The 24 hours begin when a person is detained and his liberty curtailed, not at the time of formal arrest.
- The only time that may be excluded is the time needed for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate. Neither Section 67 of the NDPS Act nor Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 prevents production within 24 hours, and a buffer zone of curtailed liberty without recorded arrest is unconstitutional.
- The Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattnayak, the Madras High Court in Kannan and the Kerala High Court in Arun K. Thomas do not lay down the correct law on Article 22(2).
- Section 58 BNSS (Section 57 CrPC) adds a second limit: detention within the 24 hours must not exceed what is reasonable. The magistrate must record the actual time of detention, release the person if 24 hours are exceeded, and may decline remand if detention was unreasonably long.
- The appellants were in custody from 02:00 pm on 29.09.2025 but were produced at 04:45 pm the next day, a breach of Article 22(2); the unexplained 18 hour gap after seizure was also unreasonable. The High Court's order was set aside and the appellants were directed to be released on bail.
Why it matters
The judgment fixes the starting point of the 24 hours rule in Article 22(2) at the moment liberty is actually curtailed, rejecting any distinction between investigative detention and arrest, including in NDPS cases. It disapproves three High Court decisions, lays down directions for magistrates at the time of production and remand, and directed that the judgment be circulated to Directors General of Police, High Courts and State Judicial Academies.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“But the expression being joint and conjunctive, the two words appearing therein would mean one and the same thing. This is because the Constitution does not recognize any detention dehors arrest. Thus, the prescription of 24 hours time period would commence the moment a person is detained by the arresting authority suspecting him to have committed an offence, when his liberty is effectively curtailed. To that extent, the words appearing in clause (2) of Article 22 i.e. ‘arrested’ and ‘detained’ are synonymous. Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ would dilute or negate the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution under clause (2) of Article 22.”
“Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for enquiry and investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Article 22(2) does not sanction creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigating purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such buffer zone is unconstitutional. There cannot be any suspension or keeping in abeyance of the constitutional safeguards provided under clause (2) of Article 22 save and except what is provided thereunder.”
“This additional but salutary limitation should be borne in mind not only by the detaining authorities but also by the magistrates considering remand. In a given case, even though technically there may not be any breach of the 24 hours timeline, yet if the magistrate is satisfied that detention was for a period longer than what was reasonable, he or she may decline remand.”
“the 24 hours timeline as mandated under clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India would commence from the date and time of detention of the person detained when his liberty stands curtailed and not from the time of his formal arrest;”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 22(2), Constitution
- Section 58, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 57, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 58 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 42(1)(d), NDPS Act
- Section 67, NDPS Act
- Rule 3, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022
Related judgments
- Follows D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996)“declared that the 24 hours rule mandated under clause (2) of Article 22 is intended to prevent unlawful detention and custodial abuse” (page 38)
- Follows Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1961)“the Constitution Bench declared that the Constitution must be interpreted in a broad way and not in a narrow and pedantic sense” (page 79)
- Follows Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026)“In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol, we reminded ourselves that the Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be interpreted in a vacuum.” (page 83)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sri Sujit Das v. Union of India
- Case
- Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 12451-12453 of 2026)
- Decided
- 5 November 2026
- Bench
- Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court by Ujjal Bhuyan, J., signed also by Atul S. Chandurkar, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.