The High Court was considering a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with a case registered under sections 140(3),140(2),115(2),303(2),351 (2),3(5) of the BNS.

The Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy held, “It is, therefore, clear that the accused petitioners have been detained in custody beyond 24 hours without any authority of a Magistrate and, thereby, they are entitled to the discretionary relief of bail inasmuch as the arrest of the accused petitioners and their subsequent remand are considered to be vitiated for not being produced before the Magistrate within the constitutional time limit of 24 hours excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest of the accused to the Court of Magistrate. ”

Senior Advocate R.P. Kar represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor T.K. Acharya represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The allegation raised was of abducting the victim-informant for repayment of Rs 2 lakh, which was received by him towards advance for arranging a piece of land to the first petitioner and assaulting the informant as well as taking away his gold chain as well as a sum of Rs 2,000 through PhonePe. The petitioners had set up the plea of non-compliance of Section 58 of BNSS read with Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India for the grant of bail.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be detained in custody beyond 24 hours without an authority of the Magistrate. On a perusal of the records of the case, the Bench found that the accused petitioners were apprehended on March 28, 2026, but they were produced before the Court after 4.40PM on March 30, 2026. The same was evident from the copy of the command certificate annexed to the affidavit of the IIC, Sadar PS, Cuttack.

The Bench took note of the fact that the accused-petitioners were produced before the Court after 4.40 pm on March 30, 2026 and their apprehension on March 28, 2026 and excluding the 10 hours’ time necessary for journey between the place of arrest and to the Court at Cuttack, which would be roughly around 260kms, the time consumed by the investigating agency to produce before the Court should have been more than 40 hours.

Considering that the accused petitioners had been detained in custody beyond 24 hours without any authority of a Magistrate, the Bench admitted each of the petitioners to bail for non-compliance of Section 58 of BNSS read with Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

The Bench thus allowed the petitioners to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 20,000 each with one solvent surety.

Cause Title: Sunil Mallick and others v. State of Odisha (Case No.:BLAPL No.4645 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate R.P. Kar, Advocate S.P. Mishra

Opposite Party: Additional Public Prosecutor T.K. Acharya

Click here to read/download Order