Case title:
Biswajith Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
Date of Order:
12th August 2025
Bench:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Parties:
Petitioner- Biswajith Mandal ,
Respondent-Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
SUBJECT
Constitutional safeguarding under Article 22(2)- Production of the accused within 24 hours of the arrest, distinction between “detention” and “formal arrest.”
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Article 22(2), Constitution of India – It mandates the production of the arrested offender before a magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.
- Section 57, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Mandates no police officer shall detain an accused in custody beyond the time limit of 24 hours without the permission of the magistrate.
- Section 52,Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Deals with the procedure for arrest and forwarding of the accused to the magistrate
OVERVIEW
This case arose from the arrest of Biswajith Mandal who was allegedly found with 26.92 kgs of ganja. He got detained on 25th January 2025 at 3:00 PM however the arrest memo was prepared on 26th January 2025 at 8:00 PM. The petitioner argued that the 24hour requirement was not met with and since the detention starts from the moment of detention and not from when the formal arrest was made, thus it violates his personal liberty.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the 24 hour period under article 22(2) begins from the time of actual detention or only from the time of actual arrest.
- Whether the delayed recording of arrest memo and the subsequent production before the magistrate, violated the accused’s fundamental rights.
- Whether such violation entitles the accused to bail despite serious charges under the NDPS Act.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- His fundamental right under Article 22(2) got violated as he was detained for nearly 29 hours before he was produced in front of the magistrate.
- Another argument forwarded was that the arrest memo was deliberately delayed in order to circumvent the constitutional safeguards which amounts to custodial abuse.
- Precedents like DK Basu versus state of West Bengal and Joginder Kumar versus state of UP were also cited, which mandate a strict compliance with the arrest procedures in order to protect the liberty of the accused.
- Finally they argued that since the detention itself was unlawful, therefore his continued custody is vitiated, which entitles him for bail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The accused got arrested formally on 26th January 2025 at 2 P.M. and then was produced before the magistrate within 24 Hours of that time, which was fulfilling the said requirement.
- The intervening duration between detention and formal arrest was used for interrogation purposes and other seizure formalities which are a part of investigative protocols.
- The quantity of the contraband seized was commercial ( 26.92kg ganja), therefore strict bail conditions under section 37 of the NDPS Act apply.
- They also argued that the technical requirements should not override the seriousness of the committed offence.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The judgement held that the 24 hour clock begins from the actual time of curtailment of liberty (detention), not from the formal arrest memo, and that the delaying if the arrest memo in order to extend custody without judicial oversight is a serious violation of the constitution under article 22(2). The case of D.K. Basu and Joginder Kumar was cited,stressing on the procedural safeguards, stating that they are not empty formalities but an essential protection against the custodial abuse. The accused was produced beyond the deadline set by the constitution and hence his continued detention was unlawful. Despite the NDPS charges, violating the fundamental rights warranted bail, as no one should be denied liberty under the pretext of serious allegations if the due process was not followed.
CONCLUSION
The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that constitutional rights take precedence over procedural formalities and it will prevail even over the gravitas of the alleged offence. The ruling clarified that the 24-hour time period provided under Article 22(2) begins from the time of actual detention, therefore preventing the investigative agencies from manipulating the timelines. Consequently, Biswajith Mandal was granted bail, marking a significant precedent in order to protect his personal liberty against the delayed arrest memo.
SUMMARIES
Kerala HC: 24-Hour Rule Begins at Detention, Not Arrest Memo
In Biswajith Mandal v. NCB (2025), the Kerala High Court held that custody beyond 24 hours from actual detention violates Article 22(2), even if an arrest memo is delayed.
The Court stressed that due process is not a formality but a safeguard against abuse.
Despite NDPS charges involving 26.92 kg ganja, bail was granted reaffirming that liberty outweighs procedure when rights are breached.
SUMMARIES
Kerala HC: 24-Hour Rule Clarified
In Biswajith Mandal v. NCB (2025), the High Court ruled that the 24-hour limit under Article 22(2) starts from the time of detention, not when the arrest memo is written.
Mandal was held for nearly 29 hours before being produced, which the Court said violated his constitutional rights.
It stressed that due process is not a technicality but a safeguard against abuse.
Even with 26.92 kg ganja seized, bail was granted.
The judgment reaffirms: liberty comes before procedure.
