Click the Play button to listen to article

Dismissing a habeas corpus plea to produce two detenus in an NDPS case, the Telangana High Court held that the detenus were in custody for 23 hours 45 minutes before their journey to the Magistrate commenced, and that time taken for travelling from police station to Magistrate court is excluded for computing total detention duration.

For context, Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires that an arrested person be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey, and prohibits further detention without the authority of a Magistrate.

However, the court clarified that the 24-hour limit for police detention under Section 58 BNSS and Article 22(2) of the Constitution is computed from the time of apprehension itself, and not from time of recording the formal arrest.

Notably the Supreme Court had also ruled against the artificial distinction between 'arrest' and 'detention' and held that the 24-hour period for production before the Magistrate, in terms of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, will run from the period of 'detention' and not just from the time of formal arrest.

The division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara hence, rejected the plea filed by the elder brother of accused No. 3, who also claimed to be a friend of accused No. 4, according to whom the two accused men had been illegally detained beyond 24 hours in violation of the BNSS and the Constitution.

“Specifically, both detenus left the Attapur Police Station at 11:00 A.M. on 04.09.2026 and were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at 13:42 hours on 04.09.2026. Hence, both Ummidi Immanuel and Nade Anil spent a total of 23 hours and 45 minutes in detention.

…the twenty-four hours period excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.….For a Writ of Habeas Corpus to succeed on this ground, an accused/petitioner must show that the detenus (arrested persons) were detained in police custody for more than twenty-four hours, calculated from the time of apprehension until the commencement of the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court for the purpose of judicial remand,” the court said.

The detenus were accused of committing offences under the NDPS Act, 1985, and first apprehended around 11.30 AM on September 3. Their formal arrest was recorded around 4 PM on the same day. At 1.42 PM on September 4, they were produced before a Magistrate as per the state.

Before the High Court, the petitioners said that the detenus were kept in police custody for more than 24 hours. According to the petitioners, there were inconsistencies between the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and the arrest memo, and the General Diary entries appeared to be fabricated by the Police.

The respondent state, on the other hand, underscored that both detenus were apprehended at 11:30 AM on September 3, left the police station at 11:00 A.M. on September 4 for judicial remand, and were produced before the Magistrate a 1.42 PM, bringing the total hours of detention to 23 hours and 45 minutes after excluding the travel time.

The state also contended that since September 4, 2026 was a public holiday with thousands of people visiting the ISKCON Temple within a 1 km radius of the Attapur Police Station, it resulted in heavy traffic congestion enroute. Hence, the travel time took beyond two hours before reaching the Magistrate's residence, the state said further. Substantial time was also taken for completing the remand proceedings for the want of sufficient staff, the state told the court.

The court, after hearing both sides, noted as below in the order:

“…Courts have construed the twenty-four hour deadline after the time of apprehension and before commencement of the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court in line with the statute; namely, excluding the travel time from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court, and that consequent delay in producing the petitioner before the Magistrate would not be fatal to the case…”.

Relying on Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan(1994) and Sujit Das v. Union of India (2026), the court held that 'the word “arrest” in its ordinary and natural sense means apprehension or restraint or deprivation of personal liberty'.

“…In the present case, both detenus were apprehended at 11:30 hours on 03.09.2026. The time of arrest (16:00 hours on 03.09.2026) would hence not be relevant for the purpose of computing compliance with the mandate of section 58 of the BNSS…” the court clarified, while holding that even then the total period of detention would be less than 24 hours since travel time would be excluded.

“….The petitioner has not been able to identify any inconsistency or contradiction which would establish that the detenus were kept in police detention for more than twenty-four hours in violation of the constitutional and statutory mandate…”, the court said further, stating that the allegations of inconsistencies were 'of a minor nature', and did not change the time-brackets in the tabulated statement furnished by the police.

The Court further observed that a habeas corpus petition is not an appropriate remedy where unproven questions of fact are raised and those are specifically disputed by the respondents.

“….Invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, after the order of remand and on the basis of uncorroborated allegations, would be sufficient to reject the Writ Petition. The petitioner has statutory remedies available to him to challenge the order of remand before a competent forum…” the court concluded.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by the court.

Tags: