Illegal detention after arrest requires magistrate production within twenty-four hours, with continued custody dependent on lawful authorisation.

Arrested persons must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours, subject only to the recognised constitutional and journey-time exceptions, and further police detention beyond that limit requires lawful magistrate authorisation under the Code and Article 22. Where the State admitted that the accused was not so produced within the prescribed time, detention after that point was unlawful and could not be justified by the absence of production in another case. The earlier bail order would operate once the required bond was furnished, unless detention was otherwise lawfully required in a separate matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused arrested in connection with one case could be denied release on the ground that he was not produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours and was not in judicial custody in the other case, and whether his continued detention was lawful.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 167(1) of the Code requires the police, where investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, to forward the accused to the nearest judicial magistrate along with the case diary, and Section 57 limits police custody beyond twenty-four hours except with magistrate's authority. Article 22 of the Constitution reinforces the mandate that a person arrested and detained must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours, subject only to the excluded journey time and the recognized constitutional exceptions. The Court held that once the State admitted that the appellant was not produced before the nearest magistrate within the prescribed time, detention beyond that period became unlawful, and the absence of production could not be used to justify further custody. The Court also made clear that the appellant's entitlement to release under the earlier bail order would operate once he furnished the requisite bond, unless detention was otherwise lawfully required in another case.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to release, and his continued detention in the Madhya Pradesh case could not be sustained on the ground that he had not been produced before the magistrate within twenty-four hours.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued detention after arrest is unlawful unless the arrested person is produced before the nearest magistrate within the time permitted by law and further detention is authorised in accordance with the Code and Article 22 of the Constitution.

---