A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while granting bail to one Naveen said,

“Arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the accused and not with the time of arrest recorded by the police officer. Right to liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and courts are required to protect the same. If the Courts fail to check these wrongs, the detention prior to recording of formal arrest can be the source of human rights violations.”

Naveen was charged for offences punishable under sections 352, 351(2), 85, 49, 103 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in a case registered by the Aldur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District along with two other accused based on a complaint filed by his mother in law, after the demise of his wife Nethravathi.

Counsel appearing for Naveen argued that he was in custody of the police in the present case from 11.00 a.m. on 14.10.2025 onwards. However, he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.10.2025 at 5.45 p.m.

It was argued that the police did not produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of his arrest and thus, his detention was illegal and in violation of Articles 21 & 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

The prosecution opposed the plea and it was contended that the petitioner had voluntarily appeared before the police on 14.10.2025 at 11.00 a.m, but he was arrested on the said date only at 9.45 p.m. He had not cooperated for the purpose of investigation, and therefore, he was not arrested immediately. It was submitted that “Merely for the reason that petitioner was in the police station from 11.00 a.m. on 14.10.2025, it cannot be said that he was arrested and was in detention.”

The court referred to Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of the Magistrate.

Further it referred to Section 58 of BNSS, 2023, which is incorporated in terms of the above Article and mandates that no police officer shall detain a person in custody without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case was reasonable.

It then said,

“A police officer cannot detain any person in custody without arresting him and any such detention will amount to wrongful confinement within the meaning of Section 340 of IPC. A person in custody cannot be detained without producing him before a Magistrate under the colourable pretence that no actual arrest is made.”

Stating that arrest and detention which is in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution, would infringe the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court added,

“Courts being the guardian of rights guaranteed to a person under the Constitution of India are required to strictly uphold the same notwithstanding the gravity of offence or the rigor provided for grant of bail under certain special enactments.”

In the present case, Court noted that Naveen was in police station from 11.00 a.m. on 14.10.2025 till he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.10.2025 at 5.45 p.m. The court said “His movements and personal liberty were restricted to the four corners of the police station. His liberty to go where he pleases was effectively curtailed.”

It continued, “SPP has fairly submitted that in the case diary, there is no such mention why the petitioner was not interrogated immediately after he had surrendered before the police and why he was shown as arrested only at 9.45 p.m. on 14.10.2025. Therefore, it can be clearly said that petitioner was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours from the time he was detained, and therefore, his detention becomes illegal and arrest gets vitiated.”

Allowing the petition the court granted conditional bail subject to Naveen executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties.

Advocate UTSAV GOWDA P.S for Petitioner.

SPP B N JAGADEESHA a/w HCGP Channappa Erappa for Respondent.