The 24-Hour Clock Binds the ED: Illegal PMLA Arrest Entitles the Accused to Bail Despite Section 45

The respondent was taken into the Enforcement Directorate's effective custody at 11:00 a.m. on 5 March 2022. His arrest, however, was recorded only at 1:15 a.m. on 6 March, and he was produced before the magistrate at 3:00 p.m. that day — more than 28 hours after custody began. The Chhattisgarh High Court granted him bail for the breach; the ED appealed, insisting the 24 hours ran from the recorded arrest.

The Key Question Before the Court

From when does the 24-hour production clock run in a PMLA arrest — and what follows when the agency misses it?

The Clock Runs From Custody, Not Paperwork

The Court held that Article 22(2)'s guarantee — production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest — and Section 57 CrPC, applied to the PMLA through Section 65, measure time from the moment a person is actually taken into custody. An agency cannot stop the constitutional clock by delaying the arrest memo: to hold otherwise would let paperwork defeat Article 21. On the admitted timeline, the respondent's production was beyond 24 hours, and the arrest stood vitiated.

Constitutional Breach Trumps the Twin Conditions

The judgment's sharpest edge is remedial. Where an arrest violates Articles 21 and 22, the court is duty-bound to release the accused on bail — notwithstanding the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA, which otherwise require the court to be satisfied of prima facie innocence and unlikelihood of reoffending. Statutory bail restrictions, in other words, do not survive a constitutional default in the arrest itself. The ED's appeal against the High Court's bail order was dismissed.

What the Court Actually Held

• The 24-hour production requirement of Article 22(2) (with Section 57 CrPC via Section 65 PMLA) applies to PMLA arrests.
• The period runs from actual physical custody, not from the recorded time of arrest.
• Non-production within 24 hours violates Articles 21 and 22(2) and vitiates the arrest.
• On such a breach, the court is duty-bound to grant bail notwithstanding the Section 45 twin conditions; the ED's appeal was dismissed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It closes the “custody without arrest” loophole — prolonged questioning in effective detention now counts against the clock.
• It ranks the Constitution above Section 45: the twin conditions cannot imprison a person whose arrest itself was unconstitutional.
• With Pankaj Bansal and Vihaan Kumar, it completes a trilogy of arrest discipline that special statutes cannot opt out of.
• Every ED arrest timeline — summons, custody, memo, production — is now forensic material.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Reconstruct the real custody timeline — entry registers, CCTV, call records; if production exceeded 24 hours from actual custody, bail follows as of right, Section 45 notwithstanding.

For Investigating Agencies

• Record arrest when custody in fact begins and calendar production accordingly — a late memo no longer saves the remand.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The questioning may occur, but once custody is in substance effected, the 24-hour production clock runs from that moment — the recorded arrest time cannot postpone it.

No. Where the arrest violates Articles 21 and 22, the court is duty-bound to release the accused on bail regardless of the twin conditions.

No — it addresses the illegality of the custody; the complaint and trial proceed on their own merits.

Conclusion