• Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025
• Decided on: 27 June 2025
• Coram: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• Jurisdiction: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC

Introduction

The judgment in Hanumant Jagannath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra represents a significant reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards relating to arrest and detention, particularly the mandate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The decision is notable for its strict scrutiny of police conduct, rejection of informal or semantic distinctions between “custody” and “arrest,” and its firm stance that personal liberty cannot be diluted by procedural subterfuge.

At its core, the case concerns the precise moment when an “arrest” begins for the purpose of calculating the constitutionally prescribed 24-hour period within which an arrestee must be produced before a Magistrate.

The Court was called upon to decide whether pre-arrest medical examination, prolonged police control, and delayed formal arrest documentation could lawfully extend this period.

The judgment situates itself within a long constitutional tradition emphasizing that liberty is the rule and detention an exception, and that procedural guarantees are not mere formalities but substantive rights enforceable through writ jurisdiction.

Factual Background

The Alleged Offences

The petitioner, Hanumant Jagannath Nazirkar, a retired individual aged 58 years, was implicated in Crime No. 128 of 2024, registered at Baramati Taluka Police Station.

The allegations pertained to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, involving cheating, forgery, and dishonest inducement resulting in alleged financial loss of approximately ₹3.37 crores.

Earlier, the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application had been rejected, and the rejection was affirmed up to the Supreme Court of India, indicating that the prosecution had already crossed preliminary judicial scrutiny regarding prima facie involvement.

Chronology of Custody and Detention

The timeline of events is central to the dispute:

1. 25 October 2024 – 1:00 PM: The petitioner was taken into custody at Shivajinagar Metro Station, Pune.
2. 25 October 2024 – 5:07 PM: He was transported to and produced at Baramati Police Station.
3. 25 October 2024 – 7:40 PM: He was taken for medical examination at a Government Medical College, Baramati.
4. 25–26 October 2024: Due to cardiac concerns, the petitioner was admitted to Giriraj Hospital, a private hospital, under continuous police supervision.
5. 26 October 2024 – 9:00 / 10:13 PM: The petitioner was shown as “formally arrested”, though arrest documentation reflected inconsistent timings.
6. 27 October 2024 – 12:20 PM: The petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Baramati, and remand was granted.

The petitioner contended that this sequence resulted in production beyond 24 hours of arrest, rendering the arrest illegal and unconstitutional.

Issues for Determination

The Court crystallized the controversy into a single, decisive question:

When did the “arrest” of the petitioner legally commence for the purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 CrPC?

From this flowed the consequential issue:

Whether the period spent in police custody and pre-arrest medical examination could be excluded while computing the 24-hour limit?

Submissions of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

1. The petitioner was taken into police custody on 25 October 2024 at about 1:00 PM, and his liberty was restrained from that moment.
2. Actual restraint of liberty amounts to arrest, even if police do not formally record it as an arrest.
3. The 24-hour period under Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC must start from the time he was first taken into custody.
4. Producing the petitioner before the Magistrate on 27 October 2024 was beyond 24 hours, making the detention illegal.
5. Pre-arrest medical examination has no legal basis under the CrPC.
6. Time spent in hospital or medical examination cannot be excluded while calculating the 24-hour limit.
7. The petitioner remained under continuous police control even in the hospital, which amounts to custody.
8. Presence of family members or phone access does not negate arrest if police control continues.
9. Only travel time to the Magistrate’s court can be excluded, and nothing else.
10. The police could have produced the petitioner through video conferencing or arranged for the Magistrate to visit the hospital.
11. Delaying production until medical fitness violates constitutional safeguards.
12. Failure to comply with Article 22(2) renders the arrest illegal, regardless of seriousness of allegations.
13. Illegal arrest is not cured by later remand or rejection of bail.
14. A writ of habeas corpus is maintainable to challenge an illegal arrest.
15. The petitioner therefore sought a declaration that his arrest was illegal and unconstitutional and prayed for immediate release.

State’s Submissions

The State contended that:

1. The State argued that the petitioner was not arrested when first taken into custody, but only formally arrested later after medical examination.
2. It was submitted that pre-arrest medical examination time should be excluded while calculating the 24-hour period.
3. The State claimed that during medical examination and hospital stay, the petitioner was not under arrest, as it was only for health reasons.
4. The State pointed out that the petitioner’s son was present and that the petitioner had access to his mobile phone, suggesting absence of arrest.
5. It was argued that the petitioner was formally arrested only on 26 October 2024 at night, and production before the Magistrate thereafter was within 24 hours.
6. The State contended that since the regular bail application was rejected, where illegality of arrest was allegedly considered, the present writ should not be entertained.
7. The State requested that the writ petition be dismissed and the arrest be held legal.

Legal Framework

• Constitutional Provisions: Article 22(2) mandates that every arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding only the time necessary for the journey.
• Statutory Provisions: Section 57 CrPC mirrors the constitutional mandate and does not contemplate any exclusion other than travel time.

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis

Meaning of “Arrest”

The Court undertook an extensive doctrinal analysis and held:

• “Arrest” is not dependent on formal documentation.
• It commences the moment a person’s freedom of movement is restrained by authority of law.
• Police terminology such as “custody,” “detention for inquiry,” or “pre-arrest supervision” is legally irrelevant.

The Court relied on binding precedents to emphasize that substance prevails over form.

Custody vs. Arrest: Rejection of Artificial Distinctions

The Court strongly deprecated the practice of:

• Detaining individuals for prolonged periods,
• Postponing formal arrest entries,
• Using medical examination as a device to delay judicial oversight.

It held that such practices defeat the constitutional purpose of Article 22(2).

Medical Examination Cannot Extend Detention

A crucial holding of the judgment is that:

• Medical examination is statutorily contemplated only after arrest (Sections 53 and 54 CrPC).
• There is no concept of “pre-arrest medical examination” in criminal procedure.
• Police custody continues even inside a hospital if the person is under police control.

Thus, medical exigency does not suspend constitutional timelines.

Computation of 24 Hours

The Court concluded that:

• Arrest commenced at the latest by 5:07 PM on 25 October 2024.
• Production at 12:20 PM on 27 October 2024 was clearly beyond 24 hours.
• Hence, the detention was illegal.

Maintainability of Habeas Corpus

Rejecting the State’s objection, the Court held:

• A writ of habeas corpus lies even after remand if the initial arrest itself is illegal.
• Bail proceedings cannot cure a constitutional violation at the stage of arrest.

This reinforces the principle that liberty-centric remedies are always available against unlawful state action.

Final Decision and Relief

The Court:

1. Declared the arrest illegal for violation of Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC.
2. Ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.
3. Imposed strict bail-like conditions, including: PR bond of ₹1,00,000, Restrictions on travel and property dealings, and Cooperation with investigation
4. Directedthe  Income-Tax authorities to inquire into alleged cash transactions.

Important Holdings of the Court

• Arrest starts the moment a person’s personal liberty is restrained, not when police record a formal arrest.
• Actual custody is arrest in law, even if police describe it as inquiry, detention, or pre-arrest custody.
• Police terminology or labels do not decide arrest; the real test is loss of freedom of movement.
• Time of arrest depends on factual restraint, not on arrest panchnama, station diary, or affidavit.
• Taking a person under police control amounts to arrest, even without handcuffs or written arrest memo.
• Pre-arrest medical examination has no legal basis under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Time spent in hospital or medical examination cannot be excluded while calculating 24 hours under Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC.
• Medical examination is required only after arrest, under Sections 53 and 54 CrPC.
• Police custody continues even inside a hospital if police retain control over the accused.
• Presence of family members or phone access does not negate arrest if police supervision continues.
• Only one exclusion is permitted from the 24-hour rule:
  time necessary for travel from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.
• No other exclusions are allowed, including medical treatment, hospitalization, or administrative delay.
• Failure to produce the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours makes the arrest illegal.
• Article 22(2) of the Constitution is mandatory and strict, not procedural or flexible.
• Illegal arrest is not cured by later remand or rejection of bail.
• Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable even after remand if the arrest itself is illegal.
• Courts can independently examine legality of arrest, irrespective of bail proceedings.
• Police must adopt lawful alternatives such as video-conferencing or hospital production before a Magistrate.
• Delaying production until medical fitness is unconstitutional.
• Any detention beyond 24 hours without Magistrate’s authority violates fundamental rights.
• The petitioner’s arrest was declared illegal for breach of Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC.
• Immediate release was ordered, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court held that an arrest begins the moment a person’s liberty is restrained by police, not when a formal arrest is recorded.

Custody under police control amounts to arrest in law. Time spent in medical examination or hospital custody cannot be excluded while computing the 24-hour limit under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 CrPC.

Only travel time to the Magistrate’s court may be excluded. Failure to produce the accused within 24 hours renders the arrest illegal. Subsequent remand or rejection of bail does not cure an unconstitutional arrest, and habeas corpus relief remains available.

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…