Ernakulam, Nov. 21 - In a rather tense Friday hearing, the Kerala High Court pulled up the police for failing to produce a man arrested in an NDPS case within the constitutionally mandated 24-hour deadline. Justice C.S. Dias didn’t mince words, calling the delay a violation of the “sacrosanct” protection under Article 22(2) and eventually granting bail to the accused. Many lawyers outside Court Room No. 7 were heard whispering that the order might become a reference point for future illegal-detention disputes.
Background
The petitioner, 39-year-old Muhammed Nashif from Malappuram, was arrested on July 20 after police allegedly recovered 338.16 grams of MDMA, a synthetic narcotic, from him and a co-accused. The seizure placed the case squarely within the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, especially Section 37, which usually makes bail extremely difficult.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Agra Man After Nearly Three Years in Jail, Flags Long Delay in Hearing
But the twist came later. Although police arrested Nashif around 12:45 p.m. on July 20, he was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate only at 2:10 p.m. the next day - far beyond the 24-hour constitutional limit. The Sessions Court at Palakkad acknowledged the lapse and simply ordered his release from jail, instead of granting bail.
However, the petitioner was rearrested almost immediately outside the prison gates, prompting the present challenge before the High Court. His lawyers called it a “mockery of judicial authority,” arguing that police took advantage of procedural ambiguity and undermined the earlier order.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dias spent considerable time reiterating why Article 22(2) exists - not as a mere technicality but as a fundamental protection of personal liberty. “The above protection is not merely a procedural safeguard but a fundamental bulwark against police excess,” the order noted.
Read also: Urgent Mentions Only Through Written Slips Except in 'Extraordinary' Cases, CJI Surya Kant Clarifies
During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, where the apex court held that custody becomes illegal the moment the 24-hour rule is breached. Citing the same, the judge remarked, “Once a court finds that constitutional safeguards were violated, it becomes its duty to release the accused on bail.”
The State took a different stand, insisting that police were empowered under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to rearrest Nashif, especially considering the seriousness of the NDPS allegations. The prosecutor argued that strict bail conditions applied under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and should not be bypassed.
But the High Court rejected that reasoning, stating bluntly that constitutional compliance comes first. The bench observed, “The petitioner’s rearrest from the precincts of the prison subverted the safeguard and rendered the earlier order nugatory,” adding that such conduct could not be allowed to stand.
Read also: Gujarat High Court Issues Notice on Plea to Modify Bail Conditions for Ashumal Sindhi in 2023 Criminal
Decision
Exercising its inherent powers, the High Court set aside the remand order and modified the Sessions Court’s earlier direction, formally granting bail. Nashif must execute a ₹1-lakh bond with two solvent sureties and appear before the investigating officer every Saturday until the charge sheet is filed. He has also been barred from leaving the jurisdiction, threatening witnesses, or engaging in similar offences. Any violation may lead to cancellation of bail.
With that, the hearing concluded - not with high-pitched drama but with a clear reminder that constitutional timelines are not optional, even in narcotics cases.
Case Title: Muhammed Nashif U vs State of Kerala & Another
Case No.: Crl.MC No. 9946 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Case (NDPS-related)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
