Unlawful arrest under Article 22(2): police restraint starts the 24-hour clock, and pre-arrest medical time cannot be excluded.

Arrest begins when police restraint deprives a person of free movement, not when it is formally recorded, and the 24-hour limit under Article 22(2) and Section 57 runs from that point. On the facts, the petitioner was under arrest from 25 October 2024, and production before the Magistrate on 27 October 2024 was beyond the constitutional limit, making the detention unlawful. Time spent in a pre-arrest medical examination could not be excluded, because the statutory scheme permits only the journey time from the place of arrest to the Magistrate to be left out. Prior rejection of bail did not bar habeas corpus relief where the arrest itself was illegal. The petitioner was entitled to release with conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's restraint and movement under police control from 25 October 2024 constituted arrest for the purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the time spent in pre-arrest medical examination could be excluded while computing the 24-hour period for production before the Magistrate, and whether rejection of bail barred the present habeas corpus challenge.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's restraint and movement under police control from 25 October 2024 constituted arrest for the purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Arrest was treated as commencing when a person's personal liberty is restrained and not from the time it is formally recorded by the police. Custody, control, and deprivation of free movement were held to be the real indicators of arrest. On the facts, the petitioner's liberty was found to have been restrained when he was taken into custody on 25 October 2024 and, in any event, when he reached Baramati Police Station at 5:07 p.m. The period for production before the Magistrate therefore began from that point and the production at 12:20 p.m. on 27 October 2024 fell beyond the constitutional limit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was in arrest from 25 October 2024, and the production before the Magistrate was beyond 24 hours, making the arrest unlawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the time spent in pre-arrest medical examination could be excluded while computing the 24-hour period for production before the Magistrate, and whether rejection of bail barred the present habeas corpus challenge.

Analysis: No statutory provision permitted exclusion of time spent for a pre-arrest medical examination. The statutory scheme contemplated medical examination after arrest, not as a device to postpone the constitutional requirement of production before the Magistrate. The contention that the petitioner's son was present or that the petitioner remained in contact with family members did not negate police custody and control. The prior rejection of bail did not bar habeas corpus relief where the arrest itself was illegal and violative of Article 22(2).

Conclusion: The pre-arrest medical examination period could not be excluded, and the earlier bail rejection did not prevent the Court from granting habeas corpus relief.

Final Conclusion: The detention was held to be constitutionally impermissible, and the petitioner was entitled to be released with conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Arrest begins when police restraint deprives a person of free movement, and the only excluded time for the 24-hour rule is the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court; medical examination time cannot be used to defeat the mandate of Article 22(2).

---