Production Before Magistrate Beyond 24 Hours Violates Article 22(2), Subsequent Remand Won't Cure Illegality: Telangana High Court

Granting bail to a woman accused in an NDPS case involving alleged seizure of 63 grams of contraband, the Telangana High Court held that delay in producing an accused before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours of arrest would violate Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and that such illegality cannot be cured by a later remand order.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:

“As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), that when the time of arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate is considered and the production is beyond 24 hours, such detention would be violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and the subsequent remand would not cure the illegality, and the accused would be entitled to be released on that ground. In view of the above settled legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner…”

The Court was hearing a criminal petition filed by Shatabdi Manna, arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.228 of 2025 registered by Miyapur Police Station for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

According to the prosecution, on 19.02.2025, acting on “credible information”, the police apprehended the petitioner at Miyapur Bus Stop and allegedly seized about 63 grams of contraband suspected to be MDMA from her possession. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as NDPS S.C. No.190 of 2025. The prosecution also claimed that accused Nos.1 and 3 were absconding, while the petitioner had remained in judicial custody since her arrest.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that she had been falsely implicated and pointed to several procedural lapses, including non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the BNSS and NDPS Act, failure to communicate the grounds of arrest, and, significantly, failure to produce her before the Magistrate within 24 hours. It was also contended that there was a “material contradiction” between the FIR, which referred to MDMA, and the FSL report, which allegedly referred to Methamphetamine. The petitioner further urged that investigation had been completed, charge sheet had been filed, she had been in custody for a considerable period, and had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the case involved “commercial quantity” and attracted the rigours of the NDPS Act, including Section 37. It was submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of contraband and that the case was supported by material collected during investigation. The prosecution argued that “mere procedural objections” would not entitle the petitioner to bail at that stage.

Upon considering the rival submissions and the material on record, the Court noted that the petitioner was indeed arrayed as accused No.2 in a case involving alleged possession of contraband and that the matter was pending trial after filing of the charge sheet. The Court also noted that the “main allegation” was that the petitioner was found in possession of about 63 grams of contraband substance at Miyapur Bus Stop.

Significantly, the Court recorded that “there is a delay of more than 5 hours” in producing the petitioner before the nearest Magistrate after her arrest. It was on this aspect that the Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Prabir Purkayastha, and held that production beyond 24 hours violates Article 22(2) and warrants the release of the affected party on bail.

In view of the “settled legal position” and the facts of the case, the Court allowed the bail petition. Bail was granted subject to conditions, including execution of a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and compliance with the statutory conditions applicable to bail.

Case Title: Shatabdi Manna v. State of Telangana

Case No.: Criminal Petition No.3938 of 2026

Appearance: Sri Raghu Gurram for the petitioner; Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order