Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Sabnam Suleman Ansari, a 34-year-old woman from Vashi, Navi Mumbai, who was accused of entering India illegally from Bangladesh. The case stemmed from her arrest on January 28, 2025, at 12:30 PM, followed by her production before the Magistrate over 24 hours later, on January 29, 2025, at 4:30 PM. Justice Milind Jadhav, in his order dated May 7, 2025, found that the prosecution had failed to adhere to the statutory requirement of producing an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours, as mandated under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The Court, in its judgment, emphasized the breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under these provisions and noted the prosecution’s failure to comply with the basic procedural requirements under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), resulting in the grant of bail.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The arguments presented before the Court revolved around the failure of the prosecution to produce the accused before the Magistrate within the 24-hour limit, which is a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights under the Constitution. Advocate Shubham Upadhyay, representing Ansari, argued that the breach of Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates the production of an arrested individual before the Magistrate within 24 hours for remand, was clear and unequivocal. He stressed that the violation was an infringement on Ansari’s constitutional rights, which should not be overlooked, especially in a case where personal liberty was at stake. He further pointed out that the prosecution’s failure to comply with this fundamental requirement should be a ground for bail, emphasizing the Supreme Court’s stance on the duty of the Court to uphold an individual’s fundamental rights when they are violated during arrest.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rishikesh Pethe, argued that a similar issue had been raised before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a previous case involving Karan Ratan Rokade, where the Division Bench rejected the argument of violation of the 24-hour rule. Pethe contended that the same reasoning should apply to Ansari’s case, especially as the argument was raised after a significant delay, and not at the time of the first production before the Magistrate. He referred to the Division Bench’s decision, which had ruled against granting bail on similar grounds, asserting that such procedural technicalities should not override the merits of the case.

However, Justice Jadhav did not agree with the State’s arguments, especially the reliance on the Division Bench’s order. The judge pointed out that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the previous case, as the charges against Ansari did not involve serious criminal offenses akin to those in the earlier case. Furthermore, Justice Jadhav emphasized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana that laid down the Court’s duty to release an accused on bail if their fundamental rights were violated during the arrest. The judge noted that the Division Bench had overlooked the aspect of the Court’s duty to intervene when an accused’s rights were violated, a point that the Supreme Court had emphasized.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the arguments, Justice Milind Jadhav concluded that the violation of the 24-hour rule could not be overlooked. The Court observed that the accused had been arrested on January 28, 2025, at 12:30 PM, and was produced before the Magistrate only on January 29, 2025, at 4:30 PM, well beyond the permissible 24-hour period. This delay, according to the judge, amounted to a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused, as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Justice Jadhav expressed concern over the indifference shown by prosecution officers towards these elementary statutory requirements, highlighting that the failure to produce the accused before the Magistrate in a timely manner was a breach of Section 50 of the CrPC, which mandates that a person arrested without a warrant must be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours.

Justice Jadhav also noted that the prosecution’s argument, relying on the Division Bench decision in the Karan Ratan Rokade case, was not applicable to the present case. He explained that the facts of the Rokade case were entirely different, as it involved multiple serious criminal charges, whereas Ansari’s case involved a violation of immigration laws. The judge emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana clarified the duty of the Court to intervene when there is a violation of an individual’s fundamental rights during arrest, irrespective of the nature of the offense.

Based on this reasoning, Justice Jadhav granted bail to Ansari on a surety of Rs. 5,000. The Court’s decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards that protect an accused’s fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty. The ruling also reflected the Court’s proactive stance in ensuring that violations of constitutional and statutory provisions were addressed promptly, even in the context of bail applications.