https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467688 Detention after interception at the airport, followed by custody in police lock-up and transfer between police stations before production before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours, was treated as arrest and found contrary to the constitutional and statutory rule on timely production. The record also did not show that the actual grounds of arrest were furnished in writing; a notice under Section 41(1)(b) was not enough to satisfy that requirement. For non-compliance with Article 22(1) and the related procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the custody and remand were invalidated and immediate release followed. en-us Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:50:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467688 Detention after interception at the airport, followed by custody in police lock-up and transfer between police stations before production before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours, was treated as arrest and found contrary to the constitutional and statutory rule on timely production. The record also did not show that the actual grounds of arrest were furnished in writing; a notice under Section 41(1)(b) was not enough to satisfy that requirement. For non-compliance with Article 22(1) and the related procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the custody and remand were invalidated and immediate release followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467688