Delhi High Court Grants Bail After Finding Detention Beyond 24 Hours Violated Article 22(2); Releases Accused in MCOCA Case on Stringent Conditions

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha heard an appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) by accused no. 7 in a Farsh Bazar crime, challenging the trial court's refusal to grant bail. The appeal concerned whether the appellant, detained at Amritsar Airport pursuant to a Look-Out Circular (LoC), was produced before a magistrate within the twenty-four hour period mandated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The court allowed the appeal, held that the appellant's detention breached Article 22(2) and directed his release on bail subject to stringent conditions. The court found that the prosecution had not established that the appellant was produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours from the moment his liberty was first restrained, and that “the continued detention of the appellant, therefore, stands vitiated, being in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.” The court granted bail on execution of a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, and imposed conditions including frequent appearances before the police, surrender of passport, furnishing identity and property details, and prohibitions on intimidating witnesses or leaving the country without court permission. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In Subhash Sharma (supra), which judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court, dealing with a case arising out of airport detention pursuant to an LOC, it was held that arrest commences from the moment a person’s liberty is restrained and that detention beyond twenty-four hours without production before the magistrate renders the custody illegal. Once a Court, while dealing with the bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj v. State of MP, (1999) 3 SCC 715, held that it is a constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established in law. The Constitution directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The only time permitted by Article 22 of the Constitution to be excluded from the said period of 24 hours is 'the time necessary for going from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate'. Only under two contingencies can the said direction be obviated. One is when the person arrested is an 'enemy alien'. Second is when the arrest is under any law for preventive detention. In all other cases the Constitution has prohibited peremptorily that 'no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate'."

Background The appellant was detained at Amritsar Airport on the intervening night of 25–26 September 2025 pursuant to an LoC and handed over to the Amritsar Airport police, who, according to the General Diary entry, handed him and his belongings to a Special Cell team from Delhi which then left in a government vehicle. The FIR alleged offences under multiple provisions of the BNSS, the Arms Act and MCOCA. The appellant contended that his custody began when he was detained at the airport and that he was not produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours; he relied on earlier interim bail granted for 21 days (which he did not misuse) and cited precedents including Subhash Sharma and Amandeep Singh Johar. The prosecution maintained that a notice to join the investigation was served on 26.09.2025 after a brief interrogation and that the appellant joined the investigation on 27.09.2025 before being arrested at 11:00 AM and produced before the Special Court later that day; it relied on entries in the General Diary and a notice said to bear the appellant’s signature.

The court examined the timeline, the General Diary entry and the prosecution's reply and observed that the record did not disclose particulars of any lawful release on 26.09.2025, the place or manner of interrogation, or the specifics of service of notice. Applying settled law that custody is illegal if a person detained at an airport pursuant to an LoC is not produced within twenty-four hours, and relying on authority confirmed by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the appellant’s continued detention was vitiated. Given the gravity of the offences and risk of absconding or witness influence, the court nonetheless imposed stringent bail conditions and granted liberty to the trial court to relax them in future if appropriate. The appeal was allowed; pending applications stood closed.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL.A. 1627/2025 and CRL.M.A. 3281/2026 Case Title: HARSH PAL SINGH ALIAS RUBAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Rana alongwith Ms. Rajani, Mr. Aman Goyal, Mr. Adarsh, Mr. Aditya, Mr. Roshan, Mr. Taran Deep Singh and Mr. Pulkit Jain, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP with Ms. Samridhi Dhohal, Ms. Afreen Paliya and Mr. U. Singh, Advocates.