Case at a Glance
A national of the Democratic Republic of Congo was intercepted at IGI Airport in February 2025 and passed capsules containing 582 grams of cocaine while in hospital under Customs escort. She was discharged on 28 February 2025 but formally arrested and produced before a court only on 2 March 2025. Justice Sachin Datta held that the roughly 64 hours after discharge, about 40 hours beyond the 24-hour limit in Article 22(2), were custody without production, and that her recorded request for rest could not be treated as consent. Applying Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 02 SC CK 0779, the Court granted regular bail on strict conditions despite the commercial-quantity charge.
The petitioner arrived at Terminal 3 of IGI Airport at about 3 am on 19 February 2025 and was intercepted. Nothing was found in her baggage. Her health deteriorated and she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital under Customs escort. On 20 February a Magistrate allowed an application under Section 103 of the Customs Act for medical screening and scanning; that order did not authorise detention. She passed six capsules on 19 February and two on 21 February, totalling 582 grams of cocaine. She was discharged on 28 February at about 8:35 pm and taken to the airport; Customs proceedings and a panchnama followed on 1 March, and she was arrested under Section 43(b) of the NDPS Act at about 12:20 pm on 2 March 2025 and produced before the court.
She was charged under Sections 8, 21, 23 and 28 of the NDPS Act; a complaint was filed in August 2025 and charges were framed in November 2025. Her earlier bail plea had been dismissed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka, on 29 April 2026. Before the High Court, Customs argued that hospitalisation was a medical necessity, that the Section 103 application was filed within 24 hours, and that after discharge she herself asked for rest before further proceedings, as recorded in the panchnama and her Section 67 statement.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does holding a person for about 64 hours after hospital discharge, without arrest or production before a Magistrate, violate Article 22(2) so as to entitle her to bail even in a commercial-quantity NDPS case?
The 24-Hour Rule Is Not Displaced by a Request for Rest
Justice Sachin Datta relied on Article 22(2) and on Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, quoting the Supreme Court’s holding that the arrest “gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody.” He also relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana: “Filing a charge-sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional”, and on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Habiob Bedru Omer v. Customs, (2025) 06 DEL CK 0572. The Court found the post-discharge period decisive. She was arrested about 64 hours after discharge, roughly 40 hours beyond the constitutional limit, and was not at liberty during that time.
On the Customs explanation, the Court held that “a request for rest cannot be treated to be consent to detention beyond 24 hours”. At most it could account for the night of 28 February; the gap of about 16 hours between the end of the panchnama and the arrest remained unexplained. The Magistrate’s order of 20 February did not authorise detention or cover the period after discharge, and the recovery was complete by 21 February, so nothing stood in the way of an earlier arrest and production. The Court did not decide whether the hospital period was itself custody, since the post-discharge period alone exceeded 24 hours. It also noted the long custody and slow trial, and, because she is a foreign national facing a commercial-quantity charge, applied the directions in paragraph 29 of Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1585, in framing conditions.
What the Court Actually Held
- Detaining the petitioner for about 64 hours after hospital discharge without arrest and production before a Magistrate breached Article 22(2); the arrest stood vitiated.
- A recorded request for rest is not consent to detention beyond 24 hours, and a Section 103 Customs Act order for medical screening does not authorise detention.
- A later complaint or cognizance does not cure an arrest that is unconstitutional (Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana).
- Regular bail was granted on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, with conditions including surrender of passport, FRRO registration within a week, disclosure of address and phone, monthly reporting to the IO, a lien on sureties’ property, verification of sureties and address, and written intimation to the DR Congo Embassy; the trial court was asked to expedite the trial.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the Supreme Court’s recent line on Article 22(2) and grounds of arrest to the common airport ‘body-packer’ scenario, where suspects are held for long periods before formal arrest.
- It makes clear that agencies cannot rely on a suspect’s supposed request or consent to stretch custody beyond 24 hours without production.
- It shows how courts balance constitutional violations against flight risk for foreign nationals through tight bail conditions rather than refusing bail.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Accused and Families
- Note the exact times of interception, discharge, arrest and production; each hour beyond 24 without production matters.
- Medical-screening orders under the Customs Act do not by themselves authorise detention.
- Even in commercial-quantity NDPS cases, an unconstitutional arrest can justify bail.
For Counsel
- Build a timeline from panchnamas, hospital records and the arrest memo to show the gap beyond 24 hours.
- Rely on Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana; later charge-sheets do not cure the defect.
- For foreign nationals, propose conditions aligned with Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara to answer flight-risk concerns.
Key Takeaways
- Article 22(2) requires production before a Magistrate within 24 hours, whatever the offence.
- A request for rest is not consent to extended detention.
- An unconstitutional arrest is not cured by a later complaint or cognizance.
- Bail granted with stringent conditions for a foreign national.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Article 22(2) of the Constitution require?
Every person arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time, and cannot be detained beyond that without a Magistrate’s authority. The Court found this limit exceeded by about 40 hours here.
Why did the Court not decide whether the hospital stay was custody?
Because it was unnecessary. The period after her discharge on 28 February 2025 until her arrest on 2 March 2025, about 64 hours, by itself exceeded the 24-hour limit by roughly 40 hours, so the Court left the hospital period open.
What special conditions were imposed because she is a foreign national?
Among others: surrender of her passport and no foreign travel without permission, registration with the FRRO within a week, verification of sureties and of her Indian address, a lien on the sureties’ property, monthly reporting to the investigating officer, and written intimation to the DR Congo Embassy.
Conclusion
The ruling holds investigating agencies to the constitutional clock even in serious narcotics cases. Once the recovery was complete and the accused was out of hospital, there was no reason for 64 more hours without a Magistrate, and a note that she wanted rest could not fill that gap.
Practical takeaway: In airport interception and body-packing cases, scrutinise the hours between medical discharge and formal arrest; if production was delayed beyond 24 hours, seek bail on Article 22(2) grounds.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com