'Time Taken For Pre-Arrest Medical Exam Can't Justify Detention Beyond 24 Hours': Bombay High Court Orders Release Of Accused
The Bombay High Court has held that the period of pre-arrest medical examination cannot be excluded from the 24-hour timeline for producing an arrestee before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC. It declared the arrest of the accused illegal and ordered his release, observing that he was not produced before the Magistrate within the required time of...
The Bombay High Court has held that the period of pre-arrest medical examination cannot be excluded from the 24-hour timeline for producing an arrestee before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC. It declared the arrest of the accused illegal and ordered his release, observing that he was not produced before the Magistrate within the required time of 24 hours.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC by the petitioner. He sought to declare his arrest as illegal on the grounds of violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner was taken into custody at 1:00 p.m. on 25 October 2024 and was produced before the Magistrate at 12:20 p.m. on 27 October 2024.
The respondent-state argued that the Petitioner's son was present, when the Petitioner was taken for pre-medical examination at Baramati and the Petitioner was in touch with his family members over the phone and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was under arrest during pre-arrest medical examination till 9:00 p.m. 26 October 2024 when he was formally arrested.
Rejecting the argument, the court held that “arrest” means a restraint on personal liberty and begins from the moment such restraint starts, not from when the arrest is formally recorded. It observed that to constitute an arrest, “it is necessary that the officers should assume custody and control over the person, either by force or with his consent. “Arrest” is when one is taken and restrained from their liberty. Even if a person is touched with a view to detaining, it would amount to an arrest.”
The Court rejected the argument by the APP that the time taken for pre-arrest medical examination should be excluded. It held that there was no statutory basis for such exclusion. The Court also clarified that merely because the petitioner was in touch with his family members over the cell phone would not mean that the Petitioner was not in the custody or control of the police authorities.
Sections 53 and 54 of the Cr.P.C. clearly show that the medical examination is obligatory after arrest. The provision of the Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the medical examination is to be conducted only after the arrest is made. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned APP regarding the pre-arrest medical examination is required to be rejected. On the contrary, the fact that the Petitioner was taken for medical examination, by applying the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Cr.P.C., clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner was arrested before the said medical examination,” the court remarked.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the petitioner's release, subject to the conditions previously imposed on him in a related case.
Case Title: Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025]