Telangana HC: Travel time to Magistrate not counted in 24-hour arrest deadline

Metro India News | Hyderabad 

The Telangana High Court has clarified that the time taken to transport an accused from a police station to a Magistrate's Court must be excluded while calculating the 24-hour period within which an arrested person has to be produced before a Magistrate. The court also made it clear that the clock begins from the moment a person's liberty is curtailed and not from the time the police formally record the arrest.

A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Renuka Yara dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production of two accused persons in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Bench found no violation of the constitutional or statutory requirement, as the detenus had spent 23 hours and 45 minutes in police custody before the journey to the Magistrate commenced.

The two accused, Ummidi Immanuel and Nade Anil, were initially apprehended at around 11.30 am on September 3, 2026. However, their formal arrest was recorded only at around 4 pm on the same day. They were produced before a Magistrate at 1.42 pm on September 4.

The petitioner's contention was that the two men had been kept in police custody for more than 24 hours, violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner also pointed to alleged discrepancies between the police counter-affidavit and arrest memos, besides questioning the authenticity of entries in the General Diary.

The State disputed the allegations, maintaining that the accused were apprehended at 11.30 am on September 3 and left Attapur Police Station at 11 am the following day for judicial remand. Their production before the Magistrate took place at 1.42 pm.

Explaining the delay in reaching the Magistrate, the State submitted that September 4 was a public holiday and heavy traffic congestion had developed because thousands of devotees were visiting the ISKCON Temple, located within a kilometre of Attapur Police Station. The journey consequently took more than two hours.

The State also pointed out that the remand proceedings took additional time because of insufficient staff.

The High Court referred to Article 22(2), which mandates production of an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey. Section 58 of the BNSS similarly restricts police detention beyond 24 hours, except under a Magistrate's special order under Section 187.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994) and its recent decision in Sujit Das v. Union of India (2026), the Bench observed that arrest, in its ordinary meaning, includes apprehension, restraint or deprivation of personal liberty.

Accordingly, the formal arrest recorded at 4 pm was not relevant for calculating the detention period. The initial apprehension at 11.30 am on September 3 was the starting point. The Bench observed that the alleged discrepancies were minor and did not establish detention beyond the permissible period. It further held that a habeas corpus petition was not an appropriate remedy for examining disputed and uncorroborated questions of fact, particularly after a judicial remand order had been passed.