This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA is Authored by A. Rangadham, Superintendent (AR), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad. This article is an analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. 

The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on 05-11-2026 has held that there is no distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ and Article 22(2) must be given a wider mandate and the terms ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ cannot be given a semantic distinction. It concluded that a moment a person is detained for investigation the countdown of 24 hours commences for the person to be produced before a Magistrate.

Time line:

29-09-2025 / 08.00 hrs – Team constituted to carry out ambush (interception) of vehicle suspected to carrying narcotic / psychotropic substance

29-09-2025 / 09.05 hrs – Suspected vehicle arrived at place of ambush in which three persons were there. The IO followed the vehicle.

29-09-2025 / 13.00 hrs – Another person on motorcycle met the occupants of the truck and received on plastic sack.

29-09-2025 / 13.00 hrs – All four persons were detained by the search team. A total of 11.03 Kg of methamphetamine (yaba) tablets were recovered. In the truck, 2 trolley bags were also recovered believed to contain yaba (32.37 kg + 17.39 kg). Total = 60.79 Kg.

29-09-2025 / 17.00 hrs – Search and seizure proceedings completed

30-09-2025 / 11.15 hrs – All four persons were arrested. Grounds of arrest was communicated to the accused and their family members.

30-09-2025 / 16.45 hrs – Accused produced before Magistrate

27-03-2026 – Charge-sheet filed.

Question raised on behalf of the accused – When the accused were intercepted at 02:00 pm on 29.09.2025, they were effectively under the control of the officer, with their liberty curtailed. Hence the period of 24 hours, as per Art. 22(2) will commence from 02:00 pm of 29.09.2025.

Cases relied upon by the Accused:

1. Niranjan Singh Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote – 1980 2 SCC 559
2. Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (P.), Bombay –  1990 SCC OnLine Bom 3
3. T. Ramadevi Vs. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary – 2024 SCC OnLine TS 42882;
4. Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar Vs. State of Maharashtra – 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2508
5. Biswajit Mandal Vs. Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau – 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6017

Cases relied upon by the Prosecution:

1. Arun K. Thomas Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau – 2026 SCC Online Ker 13043
2. Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 6652
3. Aryaman Pattnayak Vs. Union of India – MANU/OR/1830/2025

Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026

Salient findings of the Supreme Court:

• Article 22(2) states that every person who is arrested and detained in custody has to be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest without fail.
• No person shall be detained in custody beyond the 24-hour period without the authority of a magistrate, which is sacrosanct.
• Concurring with Niranjan Singh, it is held that a person would be in custody when he is in duress either because he is held by the investigating agency or other police. Detention for interrogations, informal custody etc., would amount to custody.
• Referring to Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique, it is opined that arrest is the restraint or deprivation of a man’s personal liberty. It further held that the period of detention starts the moment an accused is apprehended by the police as he remains under the confines of police personnel. Therefore, the arrest of a person commences from the time restraint is placed on his liberty and not from the time of arrest officially recorded.
• Dwelling upon Biswajit Mandal, the court observed that the period of 24 hours to produce an accused before the magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed.
• In Aryaman Pattnayak the Orissa High Court held that while detention is investigatory, arrest is accusatory and prosecutorial. Negating it, the Court held that to create an artificial distinction between detention and arrest is totally unwarranted and highly problematic.
• In Kannan the Madras High Court held that the time taken by the authorities under the NDPS Act to fulfil the statutory mandate prior to arrest, cannot be included for calculation of the 24 hours period. This opinion was set aside by holding that the procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act would not inhibit in any manner the arresting authority from producing the detainee before the magistrate within 24 hours of such detention.
• Finally referring to Arun K. Thomas, (Kerala High Court) wherein it was held that there are various statutes which recognize exceptional circumstances where detention may be authorized without a formal arrest and that NDPS Act by statutory design distinguishes between ‘detention’ and ‘arrest’. Kerala High Court concluded that the 24 hours rule for the purpose of Article 22(2) commences only from the completion of the search and seizure. The Supreme Court overruled this finding and held that these procedural formalities do not in any manner prevent the arresting authority from producing the detainee before the magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed time limit of 24 hours.
• Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for enquiry and investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee.
• Holding that the period of 24 hours for the purposes of Article 22(2) commences from the completion of such search and seizure and only from the time of arrest recorded by the arresting authority is not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional.
• The fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 cannot be tinkered with even under the special statutes.  the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar such provisions under the special statutes would have to give way.
• A statute, special or otherwise, cannot be a guide to interpret the Constitution; rather, it should be the other way around. To reiterate, a fundamental right must be interpreted in such a manner that it upholds and furthers the objective of such a fundamental right.
• The Constitution does not recognize any detention dehors arrest. Thus, the prescription of 24 hours time period would commence the moment a person is detained, suspecting him to have committed an offence, when his liberty is effectively curtailed.
• The words appearing in Article 22(2) i.e., ‘arrested’ and ‘detained’ are synonymous and there can be no artificial distinction.

In the instant case as the interception of the accused was effectively at 14.00 hrs and their production before the Magistrate was at 16.45 hours of the following date, the mandate of Art. 22(2) read with 58 of BNSS stands violated, the accused are entitled to be released from custody forthwith.

Author’s note: The decision of the Supreme Court is laudable as it uphold the constitutional rights of liberty of the individual. The practical application of the same may sometimes lead to unforeseen results. Say for example, a vessel is being searched for concealment of drugs, the recovery of the same may take 3 to 4 days considering the huge size of the vessel. Similarly, illicit drugs may be manufactured in a large pharma unit and the search proceedings to locate the drugs may take some considerable time. In such circumstances, it may not be humanly possible to complete the entire search, seizure and arrest within the time frame of 24 hours. In view of the practical difficulties faced by the enforcement agencies, the Legislature deemed it fit to confer the power of detention for the purpose of search in Sec. 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act.

“Lex non cogit ad impossibilia” is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “The law does not compel the impossible.” By putting the law into a straitjacket, and not considering the fact situations, the Law is now expecting the arresting officer to do the impossible. The law mandates that every person to be arrested be individually served the ‘written grounds of arrest’ which includes ‘reason to believe’ [both mitigating and aggravating circumstances], and necessity of arrest. The same must also be communicated to the person nominated by the arrested person. In addition, the same must be communicated in the language known to the arrested person and the person nominated. This communication must be made atleast 2 hours before the arrested person is produced before a Magistrate. The arrested person must be sent for medical examination, which process would take atleast an hour if the doctors are inclined to give priority to the arrested person over the patients available in the hospital. Any breach of the above proceedings will render the arrest illegal. The enforcement agencies are now required to function with robotic precision and not waste any time even for their basic needs as the clock never stops.

Read More: GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission