Unlawful arrest and delayed production before Magistrate can justify bail despite later judicial remand.

Complete restraint of the applicant by enforcement officers was treated as arrest and detention from the moment his movements were fully curtailed, and the delay in producing him before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours was viewed as a breach of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution. The later remand to judicial custody did not cure the earlier illegality or prevent the applicant from challenging the unlawful detention at the first available opportunity. On that reasoning, the applicant was found entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground that he was detained and arrested in violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution of India, despite a later remand to judicial custody.

Analysis: The panchanama showed that the applicant's movements were completely restrained when the enforcement team reached his house at 6:25 p.m. on 07.03.2021, that he was taken under control and physically taken to the police station, and that he remained under the team's control thereafter. On those facts, the arrest and detention were treated as complete from the moment complete restraint was imposed, and the production before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours was held to breach the constitutional mandate. The later remand order by the Special Court did not extinguish the applicant's right to raise the illegality at the first opportunity, and the earlier remand could not be used to defeat a claim based on prior unconstitutional detention.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail on account of violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution of India, and the subsequent judicial custody order did not cure the illegality.

---