24-Hour Arrest Deadline Runs From Apprehension, Not Formal Arrest: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition alleging that two accused in an NDPS case were held in police custody for more than 24 hours in violation of Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Article 22(2) of the Constitution, holding that the 24-hour period runs from apprehension and excludes the time necessary for travel to the Magistrate, and that a writ cannot be entertained on disputed facts after a judicial remand order.

A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing W.P. No. 31347 of 2026 filed by Ummidi Samuel, the elder brother of one detenu, Ummidi Immanuel (accused No. 3), and friend of the other, Nade Anil alias Anil alias Thata (accused No. 4). Both are accused in Crime No. 960 of 2026 registered under the NDPS Act, 1985, and are lodged in Chanchalguda Central Jail. The petitioner sought their production and release, contending that they were detained for over 24 hours, and that the Counter of the State was inconsistent with the Arrest Memo and the General Diary of Attapur Police Station was fabricated.

The State, through the Special Government Pleader, relied on a tabulated statement in its Counter. It showed that both detenus were apprehended at 11:30 hours on 03.09.2026, with their arrest shown at 16:00 hours that day, that they left Attapur Police Station at 11:00 A.M. on 04.09.2026 and were produced before the XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajendranagar, at 13:42 hours, a total of 23 hours 45 minutes. The Counter explained that 04.09.2026 was a public holiday for Sri Krishna Janmashtami, that over 80,000 persons had visited the ISKCON temple within a kilometre of the station, causing heavy traffic, and that the police took over two hours to reach the Magistrate’s residence and the remand staff were not immediately available.

The Bench noted that Section 58 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 57 CrPC, gives statutory effect to Article 22(2) and prohibits detention of a person arrested without warrant beyond 24 hours, excluding the journey time to the Magistrate, absent a Magistrate’s order under Section 187 BNSS. It held that the prohibition is mandatory, but that to succeed on this ground, a petitioner must show detention in police custody for more than 24 hours, counted from apprehension until the journey to the Magistrate begins, and that delay in production after that is not by itself fatal, citing Anuj @ Babu Malhari Chavan v. State of Maharashtraand Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. (1986) 3 SCC 141.

On when the clock starts, the Bench relied on Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan(1994) 3 SCC 440, Sujit Das v. Union of India (2026 INSC 1195) and Iqbal Kaur Kwatra(AP) to hold that “any form of curtailment of liberty, including of movement, would satisfy the twin expressions of ‘arrest’ and ‘apprehension’”, and that custody does not require formal arrest. The time of apprehension (11:30 on 03.09.2026) rather than the recorded time of arrest (16:00) was therefore the relevant starting point.

The petitioner relied on the coordinate Bench decision in T. Ramadevi v. State of Telangana(2024 SCC OnLine TS 4288), where the State’s own counter showed 38 hours in police detention, and the Court distinguished it as the State’s figures here showed less than 24 hours. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (2025 SCC OnLine SC 240), where the date and time of arrest were left blank and apparently filled in by hand, was likewise held inapplicable. The Court held that the alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not change any time bracket in the table.

The Bench then held:

“In essence, a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained where a person has been committed to judicial custody or police custody by a competent Court by an order which, prima facie, does not appear to be without jurisdiction or manifest illegality.”

It added that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy where the petitioner raises unproven questions of fact specifically disputed by the respondents, and that the remand order is a judicial act passed after considering the FIR allegations, against which the petitioner has statutory remedies before a competent forum. 

The writ petition and connected applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Viplav Simha Reddy, representing Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader, representing Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader.

Case Title: Ummidi Samuel vs. State of Telangana & Ors., W.P. No. 31347 of 2026,

[Read Order]