Detention Beyond 24 Hours Not Permissible Unless Magistrate Permits: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrant

The Bombay High Court, while granting bail to a Bangladeshi woman who was residing in India without proper authorization, held that police officers are not permitted to detain any accused beyond the statutory requirement of 24 hours unless the accused individuals are produced before a magistrate.

The bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav held, “prosecution officers are indifferent to these elementary but statutory requirements regarding detention beyond 24 hours not being permissible unless the accused person is produced before the Magistrate”.

The applicant, a foreign national and citizen of Bangladesh, filed an application for regular bail under Section 14(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Sections 3(a) and 6(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1950. She was arrested on January 20, 2025, based on the intelligence received from a secret informant, who reported that the applicant was residing in India without authorization. At the time of her arrest, her one-and-a-half-year-old son was with her; both were remanded to custody.

Advocate Shubham Upadhyay, representing the applicant, contended that the woman was detained well beyond the 24-hour limit prescribed by Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 58 of the BNSS Act. It was argued that the officers breached statutory safeguards: she was arrested at 12:30 pm on January 28, 2025, but was not produced before a magistrate until 4:30 pm on January 29, 2025.

Noting that the prosecution offered no explanation for the delay, the court concluded that the woman’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 were prima facie violated. It held that such a breach went ‘to the root of the matter’ and warranted immediate judicial intervention even at the bail stage.

Accordingly, the court allowed the bail application on the following conditions:

(i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(ii) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs. 5,000/- for her release immediately and file undertaking that she will provide one or two sureties in the like amount of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of four weeks after her release which shall be accepted by the Trial Court. Applicant shall provide sureties as directed;

(iii) Before her actual release from jail, Applicant shall furnish her address where she proposes to reside after her release from jail to the concerned Police Station and also to the trial Court;

(iv) After her release from jail, Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

(v) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. to mark her presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a holiday and/or non Court working day, the Applicant shall mark presence on the next working day;

(vi) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if she does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order;

(vii) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(viii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; and

(ix) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and/or two consecutive defaults in marking her attendance before trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. i.e. for cancellation of bail.

For Applicant: Advocates Shubham Upadhyay and Aryan Kotwal

For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rishikesh M Pethe

Case Title: Sabnam Suleman Ansari v State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AS:21268)