Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Judicial Oversight Is a Constitutional Breach: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in Foreign National Case

“It is the duty of the Court to release the accused on bail where her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 are violated… such arrest stands vitiated”, - In a strongly worded judgment asserting the primacy of constitutional protections, the Bombay High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused of illegally residing in India, after holding that her detention beyond the 24-hour period without being produced before a magistrate constituted a gross violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav rebuked the prosecution for failing to explain the delay and held that such custody was not only procedurally illegal but constitutionally impermissible:

“It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22… Arrest in such cases stands vitiated.”

Accused Woman Alleged to Be Bangladeshi National—Arrested with 1.5-Year-Old Child

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, Sabnam Suleman Ansari, was a Bangladeshi national residing illegally in Mumbai, and had been arrested under Section 14(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Sections 3(a) and 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950, based on a secret informant tip-off in January 2025.

She was apprehended on 28 January 2025 at 12:30 p.m. along with her infant child, but only produced before the Magistrate on 29 January 2025 at 4:30 p.m., thus violating the 24-hour rule under Section 50 CrPC and the corresponding provisions of Section 58 BNSS.

“No Explanation for Delay—This Is an Unexplained Breach of Constitutional Rights”

The Court noted that the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the prosecution failed to justify the delayed production, and instead argued that the applicant did not raise the issue at the remand stage, relying on a recent Division Bench judgment in Karan Ratan Rokade v. State of Maharashtra.

Rejecting this reasoning, the Court sided with the petitioner’s counsel, who relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, stating:

“Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, 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.”

Justice Jadhav emphasized:

“The Division Bench decision did not discuss the ‘duty of the Court’ to intervene at the bail stage in case of constitutional violations… I reject the submissions made by the prosecution.”

Documentary Evidence Shows Long-Term Indian Residency—Court Notes Applicant’s Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card

The applicant placed on record several official documents in her name, including Aadhar card, PAN card, Voter ID, Ration Card, and marriage certificate, evidencing residence in India and marriage to an Indian citizen. These, coupled with the procedural lapse, persuaded the Court to grant bail:

“It is unfortunate that prosecution officers are indifferent to these elementary but statutory requirements regarding detention beyond 24 hours.”

Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions to Ensure Presence During Trial

The Court allowed the bail application and imposed strict conditions to ensure trial participation.

The Court clarified: “The observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and shall not influence trial on merits.”

This ruling reasserts the non-negotiable nature of constitutional protections, especially regarding arrest and detention procedures. By recognizing the duty of the bail court to intervene in cases of Article 21 and 22 violations, the Bombay High Court has issued a strong signal that liberty cannot be left at the mercy of procedural lapses by law enforcement agencies.

“The fundamental rights of liberty and due process stand above the letter of routine arrest—where they are breached, the judiciary must step in without delay.”

Date of Decision: 7 May 2025