The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that detention of an accused beyond 24 hours without judicial authorization renders the arrest illegal, even if a formal arrest memo is prepared later.
The bench of entries in arrest memos or police records are merely declaratory and cannot override the factual reality of custody. It cautioned against investigative agencies using semantic distinctions such as “detention for questioning” to bypass constitutional mandates. The judgment reiterated that the 24-hour rule must be computed from the moment of actual restraint on liberty, not from the time of formal arrest documentation.
The case arose from a petition filed by Anuj Kumar Singh, who challenged his arrest by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in connection with an alleged inter-state diversion of psychotropic medicines. The petitioner contended that although his formal arrest was shown at 9:00 PM on November 1, 2025, he had effectively been in custody since the night of October 31, 2025, when NCB officials searched his premises and took him along to Chandigarh.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, undertook an extensive examination of the concept of “arrest” and “custody” under criminal law. The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a foundational constitutional value, not merely a statutory right, and any deprivation of such liberty must strictly comply with procedural safeguards enshrined in law.
Rejecting the NCB’s argument that the petitioner had voluntarily accompanied officials and was only formally arrested later, the Court held that the true test is not the label assigned by the investigating agency but the actual restraint on the individual’s freedom. It observed that once a person’s movement is restricted and he is under the control of authorities, the period of custody begins—irrespective of when the arrest is officially recorded.
The Court noted that the petitioner remained continuously with the NCB from around 10:45 PM on October 31, 2025, until he was produced before the Magistrate at approximately 2:00 PM on November 2, 2025. This duration clearly exceeded the 24-hour limit prescribed under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
The Court further emphasized the duty of Magistrates to scrutinize the legality of arrest at the time of production, rather than mechanically accepting the timeline presented by the investigating agency. It underscored that this judicial oversight acts as a critical safeguard against arbitrary detention.
Holding that the petitioner’s detention was in clear violation of statutory and constitutional provisions, the Court declared the arrest illegal and ordered his release, subject to furnishing appropriate bonds.
Case Details
Case Title: Anuj Kumar Singh Versus Union of India
Citation: JURISHOUR-847-HC-2026(P&H)
Case No.: CRM -M -2979 -2026
Date: 17/04/2026
