https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463952 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. en-us Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Sep 2025 17:21:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463952 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463952