Sujit Das vs Union of India 2026: 24-Hour Rule Under Article 22(2)

Case Details

Case number

Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 12451-12453 of 2026Copy

Diary number

34936/2026

Date of judgment

5 November 2026

Neutral citation

2026 INSC 1195Copy

Bench

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Judgment written by

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Opinions

One judgment, signed by both Judges

Court below

High Court of Tripura at Agartala, common judgment and order dated 29 April 2026 in Bail Applications No. 72/2026, 74/2026 and 75/2026

Main laws

Article 22(2) of the Constitution; Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 57 CrPC); Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Status

Reportable

Case Journey: How It Reached the Supreme Court

1. 1Interception and seizureOn 29 September 2025 a Customs search team acts on secret information about a truck carrying Yaba tablets. The Union says the appellants were intercepted at 2:00 pm and that search and seizure ended at 5:00 pm. The Union's affidavits record a total of 60.79 kg.
2. 2Formal arrest and remandOn 30 September 2025 the appellants are shown arrested at 11:00 am and 11:15 am under Section 42(1)(d) of the NDPS Act. They are produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 4:45 pm and sent to judicial custody.
3. 3Charge-sheet and bail refusedThe charge-sheet is filed on 27 March 2026. On 30 March 2026 the Special Judge, West Tripura, rejects their bail applications.
4. 4High Court dismisses bailOn 29 April 2026 the High Court of Tripura dismisses their bail applications, relying on Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5. 5Supreme Court raises the 24-hour issueThe Supreme Court issues notice on 24 July 2026. On 21 September 2026 it asks the Investigating Officer for an affidavit on the time of detention and arrest.
6. 6JudgmentOn 5 November 2026 the Supreme Court allows the appeals, sets aside the High Court order and directs production before the Special Court within 7 days, followed by release on bail.

What Was the Case About?

Three appellants, Sri Sujit Das, Sri Suman Das and Sri Rupak Sarkar, are accused in Case No. 04/CL/NDPS/DPF/AGT/2025-26 under Sections 21(C), 22(C), 23(C), 25, 25A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case is that on 29 September 2025 a search team of the Divisional Preventive Force of the Customs Division, Agartala, acted on secret information about a truck carrying psychotropic substances hidden in a consignment of ginger. A man on a motorcycle, Sujit Das, met the truck, and 11.03 kg of methamphetamine (Yaba) tablets was recovered. A further search of the truck at the Customs Division office led to more recoveries. The Union's affidavits record a total of 60.79 kg (gross weight). A fourth accused, Raju Das, is not an appellant.

The Union of India says the appellants were intercepted at 2:00 pm on 29 September 2025 and that search and seizure ended at 5:00 pm. The appellants were shown formally arrested under Section 42(1)(d) of the NDPS Act on 30 September 2025 at 11:00 am and 11:15 am. They were produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 4:45 pm that day, who sent them to judicial custody. The judgment records different times in different places. The interception is put at about 1:00 pm, 2:00 pm and 2:30 pm in different paragraphs, and the production before the Magistrate at 4:30 pm, 4:45 pm and about 5:00 pm. The Court's ruling uses 2:00 pm for the interception and 4:45 pm for the production.

The Special Judge, West Tripura, rejected their bail applications on 30 March 2026, after the charge-sheet of 27 March 2026. The High Court of Tripura also dismissed their bail applications on 29 April 2026. Before the High Court, the appellants had argued that Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was violated and that Article 21 overrides Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The respondent's counsel before the High Court accepted that the arrest memo lacked the signature of a relative or respectable person, which was prima facie a violation of Section 36 of the BNSS, but argued that Section 37 would still bar bail. The High Court relied on State of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora and held that Section 37 is mandatory.

The Supreme Court issued notice on 24 July 2026. On 21 September 2026 the appellants' senior counsel raised a point that nobody had argued in the High Court. The accused were intercepted on 29 September 2025 but shown arrested on 30 September 2025, so that their production before the Magistrate would appear to fall within 24 hours. The Court asked the Investigating Officer to file a specific affidavit on this point.

The Union argued that interception is not arrest, and that the time taken for NDPS formalities (a notice under Section 50, a gazetted officer, weighing under Rule 3 of the 2022 Seizure Rules, questioning and travel) cannot be counted in the 24 hours. It relied on decisions of the Kerala, Madras and Orissa High Courts. The Additional Solicitor General accepted that detention before arrest cannot be for an unduly long period. The appellants argued that their liberty was curtailed from the moment of interception, so the 24 hours began then, and that detention and arrest cannot be separated.

Issues and What the Supreme Court Held

This table lists each question the Court dealt with, its answer in simple words, and the paragraph of the judgment where you can read it.

The Court's Reasoning in Simple Words

The Court said the whole case turns on Article 22(2). It says that a person who is arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, leaving out only the time needed for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court. No such person can be kept in custody beyond that period without a magistrate's authority. The Court called the 24-hour deadline sacrosanct and said that the Constitution does not permit any other time to be excluded. It added that any breach of clause (2) makes the arrest illegal and unconstitutional.

The Court rejected the Union's distinction between detention and arrest. It said the words 'arrested and detained in custody' are joined by 'and', so they mean one and the same thing, and the Constitution does not recognise any detention separate from arrest. The 24 hours therefore begin the moment a person is detained by an authority that suspects him of an offence and his liberty is effectively curtailed. The Court said that any artificial distinction would dilute the protection in Article 22(2). It relied on Niranjan Singh, which called such explanations unfair evasions of the law. It also said that Deepak Mahajan, which treats a person as arrested when he is deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases, supports the appellants. The Court added that a statute cannot guide the interpretation of the Constitution, and that a fundamental right must be read so that it furthers its objective.

The Court held that the NDPS procedures do not stop the clock. It asked whether the procedures under the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules stop the officer from producing the detained person before a magistrate within 24 hours and continuing the procedure after the magistrate's remand. It answered with an emphatic no. It said that Article 22(2) allows no buffer zone where liberty is curtailed for investigation but not shown as arrest, called such a buffer zone unconstitutional, and said there is no such thing as a temporary disruption of liberty. It also called the Orissa High Court's test, that a detention becomes an arrest only after a short investigatory hold, constitutionally unsustainable.

The Court disapproved the decisions of the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattnayak, the Madras High Court in Kannan and the Kerala High Court in Arun K. Thomas. It said they do not lay down the correct law on Article 22(2). It added that the single judge in Arun K. Thomas should have referred the matter to the Chief Justice, because he took a view contrary to an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench in Biswajit Mandal. The Court noted that it had dismissed the special leave petition against the Orissa High Court decision on 18 August 2026, but it still disapproved that reasoning.

The Court explained why the rule matters. It referred to Khatri vs State of Bihar and D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, which recognised custodial violence and the practice of not recording an arrest or calling the deprivation of liberty a prolonged interrogation. It also referred to Shafhi Mohammad, which stressed videography of the crime scene and an oversight body, and to Paramvir Singh Saini, which directed CCTV cameras in police stations and in the offices of agencies such as the NCB. Section 58 of the BNSS (Section 57 of the CrPC) adds a second limit: detention without a warrant must not be longer than reasonable in the circumstances, within the 24 hours. Magistrates must keep this in mind while considering remand.

Applying this, the Court held that the arrest of the appellants for Article 22(2) took place at 2:00 pm on 29 September 2025, when they came under the control of the search team. They had to be produced before the Magistrate before 2:00 pm on 30 September 2025, but they were produced at 4:45 pm. This was a clear breach that vitiated the arrest and made their continued detention beyond 2:00 pm on 30 September 2025 illegal and unconstitutional. The Court also noted an unexplained gap of 18 hours between the end of the seizure at 5:00 pm on 29 September 2025 and the formal arrest on 30 September 2025, which it called a long period in custody without judicial oversight, with a clear possibility of misuse and abuse of authority, and not a reasonable period under Section 58 of the BNSS. It held that the appellants are entitled to be released from custody forthwith. In its conclusions, the Court directs that they be produced before the Special Court within 7 days and then released on bail.

On bail law, the Court expressed reservations about the observation in Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and cannot be used on the ground of delay alone to override it. The Court said that fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with lightly, even under special statutes, and that when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 has to give way. It cited K.A. Najeeb and other decisions. It added that the observation could be argued to be per incuriam because K.A. Najeeb is a three-Judge Bench decision, but it would not comment beyond that point as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora is a coordinate Bench decision. It also said it was a debatable issue on the facts of that case whether speedy trial was being jeopardised, and that Article 22(2) was not an issue there.

Final Order of the Supreme Court

1. The criminal appeals are allowed.
2. The judgment and order of the High Court of Tripura dated 29 April 2026 is set aside.
3. The appellants must be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within a maximum of 7 days from 5 November 2026. After that they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate.
4. The judgment says that a copy may be circulated to all Directors General of Police of the States and Union Territories, the Registrar Generals of the High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies.
5. All pending applications are disposed of.
6. The judgment does not mention any order on costs.

Laws, Rules and Cases in This Judgment

Key Points From This Judgment

• The 24 hours under Article 22(2) run from the date and time of detention, when the person's liberty is curtailed, and not from the time of formal arrest.
• If the detention continues beyond 24 hours before the person is produced before a magistrate, he must be released forthwith.
• Only the time needed for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court can be excluded from the 24 hours. No other period can be excluded.
• The decisions of 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).
• The detaining authority must also make sure that the detention within the 24 hours is not longer than reasonable, as Section 58 of the BNSS requires.
• At the time of production the magistrate must record the actual date and time of detention and check whether the 24 hours have been met. The magistrate may also decline remand if the detention was longer than reasonable.
• In this case, the detention of the appellants breached Article 22(2) and Section 58 of the BNSS, so the High Court order was set aside.
• The judgment says that a copy may be circulated to all Directors General of Police, the Registrar Generals of the High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment explains how the 24-hour clock under Article 22(2) is counted. It tells investigating agencies that the time before a formal arrest is recorded does not delay the clock once a person is detained and his liberty is curtailed, and it asks magistrates to record the actual time of detention when an accused is produced. The Court also disapproved the reasoning of three High Courts and said that copies may be circulated to police chiefs, High Court registrars and judicial academies. This is a Reportable judgment of a two-Judge Bench.

This page is useful for investigating officers, magistrates, lawyers, law students and anyone who wants to understand how the 24-hour rule under Article 22(2) is counted.

Key Legal Terms Explained

Article 22(2)

The part of the Constitution that says an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours.

Detention and arrest

Taking a person under control so that his liberty is curtailed. For Article 22(2) the Court treated the two as the same thing.

Remand

An order of a magistrate sending an accused person to custody.

Judicial custody

Custody under the order of a magistrate or court, usually in jail.

Bail

Release of an accused person from custody on conditions while the case goes on.

Per incuriam

A decision made without noticing a binding law or an earlier decision of a larger bench.

Coordinate Bench

A bench of the same strength as another bench.

Forthwith

Immediately, without delay.

Read the Full Judgment

This page explains the judgment in simple words. It is not legal advice. Please read the full judgment before you rely on it.

Frequently Asked Questions