24-hour arrest rule starts from actual detention, Allahabad HC rules

The Lucknow bench made the observation while quashing the remand order of two men arrested by customs officials in a gold seizure case. The court also directed their immediate release.

In Short

• Bench says custody starts when liberty is actually restrained by authorities
• Customs prepares arrest papers long after police first detained the petitioners
• Judges rule Article 22 safeguards cover customs and agencies beyond police

The Allahabad High Court has said that the 24-hour limit for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the time the person's liberty is actually curtailed, and not only from the time noted in a formal arrest memo.

The Lucknow bench made the observation while quashing the remand order of two men arrested by customs officials in a gold seizure case. The court also directed their immediate release.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on September 28 while allowing a petition filed by Sandeep Jaiswal and another. According to the petitioners, their car collided with a police vehicle in Kannauj's Tirwa area on August 22. Police then found that the vehicle allegedly contained around 10 kg of gold and took the two men into custody at about 5.45 am. They were later handed over to customs officials.

The customs department prepared the arrest memo only at 6.38 pm on August 23, while the petitioners were produced before a magistrate on August 24.

The petitioners argued that they had already been effectively detained well before the formal arrest memo was prepared, and that their production before the magistrate was therefore beyond the 24-hour period laid down under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

Accepting this argument, the bench held that the 24-hour period cannot be decided solely on the basis of the time mentioned in an arrest memo.

It said that once authorities exercise effective control over a person's movement and liberty, that person is in custody for the purposes of Article 22(2).

The court also clarified that this safeguard applies not only to police arrests but also when a person is taken into custody by customs or other authorities.

Holding that the petitioners' fundamental right had been violated, the bench quashed the August 24 remand order and directed their release forthwith. It also directed them to appear before the trial court within 24 hours of their release and seek bail or anticipatory bail, as legally permissible.

In sum, the court said the constitutional 24-hour protection runs from the point of actual detention, set aside the remand of the two petitioners in the gold seizure case, and ordered them to be released with directions to approach the trial court for relief.

- Ends