Introduction:

In the case Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025], the Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling on personal liberty under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), declaring the arrest of the petitioner illegal for failing to produce him before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his detention. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, while hearing a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, strongly criticized the respondent-state’s argument that the period of pre-arrest medical examination should be excluded from the 24-hour mandatory timeline. The petitioner had been taken into custody at 1:00 p.m. on October 25, 2024, but was not produced before the Magistrate until 12:20 p.m. on October 27, 2024, exceeding the constitutionally permissible period. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this delay amounted to illegal detention in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(2), which mandates that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding only the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court. The state, through the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), attempted to justify the delay by contending that the petitioner’s son was present when the petitioner was taken for pre-medical examination at Baramati, and that the petitioner remained in touch with his family over the phone, allegedly indicating that he was not under formal arrest until 9:00 p.m. on October 26, 2024. The state insisted that the period before the formal recording of arrest should not count towards the 24-hour limit, suggesting that the clock started only once the arrest was documented officially.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner’s counsel forcefully argued that arrest under Indian law begins not from the moment an officer writes down the arrest in official records but from the time the individual’s liberty is actually restrained by the authorities. He pointed out that taking the petitioner to the hospital for medical examination under police custody was clear evidence of actual detention and that any subsequent attempt to redefine the timeline by the state was a blatant violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The counsel cited Sections 53 and 54 of the CrPC, which require medical examination only after arrest, to show that taking the petitioner for such examination before formal documentation of arrest was itself proof of the state’s control and custody over him. The petitioner’s side emphasized that any restraint on liberty, whether physical or through submission to authority, constituted arrest and triggered the 24-hour clock under Article 22(2). In contrast, the state’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not under arrest until 9:00 p.m. on October 26, 2024, since he was accompanied by his son and maintained communication with family members during the pre-arrest medical examination. The state claimed that these factors showed the petitioner was not yet deprived of his liberty, and therefore, the statutory 24-hour period had not yet commenced. The APP further asserted that the medical examination, conducted prior to the formal arrest, was intended as a safeguard for both the police and the accused and should not count towards the detention timeline. According to the state, it was reasonable and lawful for the police to take necessary time to complete pre-arrest formalities such as medical examination, and only after these steps should the legal obligation to produce the accused before the Magistrate arise.

Court’s Judgement:

Rejecting the state’s arguments, the High Court unequivocally held that the moment an individual’s liberty is restrained by police authorities, whether by physical custody or by placing them under circumstances indicating police control, the arrest is deemed to have commenced. The bench stated that “arrest” begins at the point when officers assume custody over the person, either forcibly or with the person’s consent, and that even touching an individual with intent to detain amounts to arrest under the law. The Court observed that the pre-arrest medical examination cited by the state could not be treated as occurring outside the context of arrest, as Sections 53 and 54 of the CrPC clearly require medical examination to take place only after arrest, not before. By taking the petitioner for medical examination, the police had effectively placed him under their custody, triggering the 24-hour constitutional obligation to produce him before the Magistrate. The Court dismissed the notion that the petitioner’s ability to contact family members over the phone during medical examination negated the fact of his arrest, pointing out that communication with relatives does not negate restraint on liberty or police control. The Court further emphasized that there is no statutory basis for excluding the period of pre-arrest medical examination from the 24-hour timeline laid down under Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC. The bench observed that accepting the state’s argument would undermine the fundamental right of personal liberty and erode the protections provided to arrestees under the Constitution. Finding that the petitioner was arrested at 1:00 p.m. on October 25, 2024, and not produced before the Magistrate until after the permissible 24-hour period had lapsed, the Court declared the arrest illegal and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release, subject to conditions previously imposed in a related case. The decision powerfully reaffirmed the inviolable right of every citizen against arbitrary detention and the importance of strict adherence to constitutional timelines governing arrest procedures.