Delay Shorter Than 24 Hours Held Excusable Where Travel Time and Court Confusion Were Shown; Petition to Quash Remand Dismissed

A Single Judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna in the Karnataka High Court heard a petition challenging a remand order dated 26.05.2025 and sought the release of an accused on the ground that he was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, thereby invoking Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

The court rejected the petition and dismissed the challenge to the remand order. It held that the accused was officially arrested at 5.00 p.m. on 25.05.2025 and was produced before the magistrate at 5.25 p.m. on 26.05.2025, and that the short delay was adequately explained by travel time and confusion as to the magistrate on duty. The court noted the constitutional mandate and statutory provision, quoting Article 22(2): "Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate..." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, non-production of the accused within the mandatory time in certain circumstances would not vitiate the proceedings. Illustrations galore in terms of what is quoted hereinabove. Therefore, the petitioner is officially arrested in terms of the arrest panchanama at 5.00 p.m on 25-05-2025 and is produced before the learned Magistrate the next day at 5.25 p.m. In the peculiar facts of this case, the delay is explained and the explanation is acceptable, as it is the travel time or the obfuscation with regard to the Court before whom the petitioner was to be produced.”

Background The petitioner, Shivraj S., faced a charge-sheet in Crime No.43 of 2025 for offences under Sections 103(1), 55 and 3(5) of the BNSS (murder and related offences). The prosecution alleged that accused No.1 supplied "supari" and the petitioner executed the murder on the night of 23-05-2025. The petitioner was apprehended at a bus stop on 25-05-2025 at 3:30 p.m., taken to N.R. Pura Police Station, and an arrest panchanama recorded an official arrest time of 5.00 p.m. He was produced before the magistrate on 26-05-2025 at 5.25 p.m. The petitioner contended that the gap between apprehension and production breached Article 22(2) and Section 58 (formerly Section 57 CrPC/BNSS), seeking to quash the remand and secure release; he relied on recent authority. The State explained that the regular magistrate was on leave, the accused had been taken to the in-charge magistrate, and travel and administrative time justified the short delay.

The High Court analyzed the statutory and constitutional scheme and surveyed apex and high court precedent, including Gouri Shankar Jha, Khatri (2), Manoj, Arnesh Kumar and relevant Bombay High Court decisions, emphasising that the 24-hour requirement excluded "the time necessary for the journey" and that non-production within 24 hours did not invariably vitiate custody where adequate explanation existed. The court accepted the prosecution's explanation that, measured from the official arrest time, the delay was 25 minutes and, measured from apprehension, one hour fifty-five minutes, and found the explanation satisfactory. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected bail (order dated 11-12-2025); the High Court found no reason to re-open that conclusion in a Section 528 petition. The petition was dismissed and I.A. No.1 of 2026 was disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION No.141 OF 2026 Case Title: Shivraj S. v. State of Karnataka Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri Utsav Gowda P. S., Advocate For the Respondent(s): Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor