Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case

“Arrest Starts When Liberty Ends”, In a significant judgment delivered on February 10, 2026, the Delhi High Court held that detention of an accused beyond 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate violates the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2), warranting release on bail, even in cases involving serious offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha an accused in a case registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act, and MCOCA, and granted him bail on stringent conditions, citing a blatant constitutional violation in the manner of his arrest and continued custody.

“Arrest Commences From the Moment Liberty is Restrained” – Detention at Amritsar Airport Triggers Article 22(2) Timeline

The appellant was detained on the night of 25/26 September 2025 at Amritsar Airport while attempting to board a flight to Bangkok, pursuant to a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued in a pending case. Though the State claimed that he was “released” after a brief interrogation and only formally arrested the next day, the Court refused to accept this version, holding:

“It is an admitted position that the appellant was detained at the Amritsar Airport... The General Diary entry clearly records the handing over of the appellant to the Delhi team along with his belongings. There is no material on record to show that he was ever released in between.”

The Court found that the time of arrest must be reckoned from the moment of initial restraint, and not from the time of formal arrest on the next day, noting:

“Arrest commences from the moment a person’s liberty is restrained... Detention beyond twenty-four hours without production before the magistrate renders the custody illegal.”

— Citing Subhash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement (2022 SCC OnLine Chh 2794), affirmed by the Supreme Court.

No Exception Applies: “Only Travel Time Excluded from 24-Hour Rule”

Rejecting the prosecution’s submission that the appellant was not technically arrested on 26.09.2025, the Court made it abundantly clear that constitutional protections under Article 22(2) apply once a person’s liberty is curtailed:

“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.”

The Court further clarified:

“Only two contingencies can justify deviation: preventive detention or enemy alien. In all other cases, the Constitution prohibits peremptorily that no such person shall be detained beyond 24 hours without the authority of a magistrate.”

“Gravity of Offence Cannot Cure a Constitutional Illegality” – Bail Granted Despite MCOCA Charges

While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences—including alleged involvement in an organised crime syndicate and evasion of investigation—the Court held that constitutional safeguards override prosecutorial concerns:

“Once the Court finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 have been violated... it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail.”

The Court candidly noted the State’s legitimate apprehensions regarding the appellant’s attempt to abscond, particularly since he booked a flight to Bangkok after receiving notice to join the investigation. However, it held:

“As there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions of law, the appellant will have to be released on bail.”

Bail Granted With Stringent Conditions to Prevent Absconding or Witness Tampering

Given the grave nature of the offences and the alleged conduct of the appellant, bail was granted with strict safeguards, including:

• Execution of a ₹2,00,000 personal bond with two solvent sureties.
• Thrice-weekly appearance before the SHO concerned.
• Surrender of passport and no permission to leave the country without court’s approval.
• Disclosure of identity and property details.
• No contact with witnesses or interference in trial.

“The trial court is given the liberty to decide on any relaxation or modification of these conditions in the future.”

Court Reiterates Constitutional Supremacy Over Procedural Convenience

This judgment is a strong affirmation of Article 22(2) and a reiteration of the inviolability of personal liberty under Article 21. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that no procedural omission, however minimal, can be permitted to erode the foundational safeguards against arbitrary detention:

“The respondent has admitted the timeline, and the record shows that the appellant was not produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours... The continued detention of the appellant, therefore, stands vitiated.”

Citing Manoj v. State of M.P. (1999) 3 SCC 715, the Court underscored that liberty is not conditional on the nature of the offence, and constitutional compliance is not optional.

Despite facing serious allegations under MCOCA, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Arms Act, the appellant Harsh Pal Singh @ Rubal was granted bail by the Delhi High Court owing to a fundamental constitutional violation — failure to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his initial detention at Amritsar Airport.

The ruling not only sets an important precedent in interpreting the commencement of custody under LOC, but also strongly reiterates that constitutional mandates cannot be circumvented in the name of investigative expediency.

Date of Decision: 10 February 2026