Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

ORDER RESERVED ON : 22.06.2026

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 01.07.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Crl.OP(MD).No. 3378 of 2026

Kannan ....Petitioner/Accused No.3

Vs

State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

The Inspector of Police

Othakadai Police Station

Madurai City -District

Crime No.395 of 2024 ....Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 to call for the records relating to the

remand order passed in Crime No.395 of 2024 dated 10.10.2024 by the

Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, Madurai and to examine the same and to set

aside the remand order dated 10.10.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan

For Respondents :Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

1/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed by Accused No.3 in Crime No.395

of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeking to set aside the order of

remand of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur dated 10.10.2024.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The petitioner herein is arrayed as 3

rd

accused in Crime No.395 of

2024 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offences under

Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985. The F.I.R has been registered on 09.10.2024.

3.As per arrest memo, the petitioner was arrested at 6.30 p.m on

09.10.2024 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur at 5.30 p.m

on 10.10.2024 and he was remanded to judicial custody. This order of remand

is under challenge on the following grounds:

a)Though arrest memo has been issued to the petitioner herein, it does

not contain the grounds of arrest and therefore, it is defective.

b)The petitioner was detained at 5.00 p.m on 09.10.2024 even as per

the allegation in the F.I.R. However, the arrest memo shows that the

petitioner was arrested only at 6.30 p.m on 09.10.2024. Calculating 24 hours

from 6.30 p.m on 09.10.2024, the petitioner has been produced before the

Jurisdictional Magistrate only at 5.30 p.m on 10.10.2024 and accepting the

2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

same, an order of remand has been passed. The period of 24 hours has to be

calculated from the time of detention and not from the time mentioned in the

arrest memo after formal arrest. Therefore, the petitioner, having been

produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate after 24 hours, the order of

remand is vitiated and therefore, liable to be set aside.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied upon two

decisions of Kerala High Court reported in 2025 SCC Online Ker 6017

(Biswajit Mandal Vs. Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau) and 2025 SCC

Online Ker 6682 ( Ganesh Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Represented by

Special Public Prosecutor) and contended that the calculation of 24 hours for

production before the Jurisdictional Magistrate has to be calculated only from

the time of detention by the police authorities and not from the time of formal

arrest mentioned in the arrest memo.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 240

( Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma), especially paragraph

No.6 and contended that in a case arising out of Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that

the time at which the physical custody of the accused was taken, has to be

reckoned for the purpose of calculating 24 hours and not the time at which

3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

formal arrest was shown. He also relied upon a decision of the High Court of

Telangana at Hyderabad reported in 2024 SCC Online TS 4288

( T.Ramadevi Vs.State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary and

others) especially paragraph Nos.11 and 12 and contended that the arrest of a

person commences from the time restraint is placed and not from the time of

the arrest officially recorded by the arresting officers.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied a decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 ( Vihaan Kumar Vs.

State of Haryana and another) especially Paragraph No.21 and contended

that once the arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1) of

Constitution of India, the arrest itself is vitiated and therefore, continued

custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Relying

upon the said judgement, the learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed

out that filing of a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an

arrest which is perse void and unconstitutional.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254

( Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2025 SCC Online SC 1318 (

Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh) and (2024) 7 SCC 576 ( Pankaj

Bansal Vs. Union of India and others) and contended that when the arrest

memo does not convey the grounds on which the accused was being arrested,

4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

the arrest and the consequential remand order are liable to be declared

invalidated in the eye of law.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Rajinder Rajan Vs.

Union of India and another in Criminal Appeal No.3327 of 2026 dated

01.04.2026 to contend that when the arrest memo is in a template format and

it states that the grounds of arrest had been orally explained, but not given in

writing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to release the accused person

from the custody relying upon the decision reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a decision

of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.2494 & 2304 of 2025 (Raj Kumar and others

Vs.The State Rep.by the Inspector of Police) dated 11.12.2025 wherein the

orders of remand were put to challenge on the ground that the ground of

arrest was not furnished by the petitioner in writing as mandated in the

Constitution of India and Section 50 of Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge of

this Court was pleased to accept the contention of the petitioner and held that

the arrest become illegal and the remand order was set aside and the

petitioners were released on certain conditions.

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a

decision of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.2485 of 2025 (Yasar Arafath @

Mannadi Yaser Vs.The State Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram

5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

Police Station, Chennai) dated 19.12.2025 wherein the order of remand was

put to challenge on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not furnished.

The learned Judge of this Court following the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online 2356 (Mihir Rajesh Shah

Vs.State of Maharashtra and another) was pleased to allow the same and set

aside the order of remand.

11.The learned counsel had also relied upon the decision of this Court

in Crl.OP.No.34406 of 2025 ( Vignesh Vs. The Inspector of Police, PEW

Ambattur Unit, Chennai) dated 27.02.2026 wherein this Court had an

occasion to consider the bail application. The petitioner had relied upon

Paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16 wherein this Court observed that the grounds of

arrest was not sufficiently explained to the petitioner and therefore, he had

suffered prejudice by denial of fair opportunity to defend himself and granted

bail to the petitioner therein on certain conditions.

12.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a

decision of this Court in Crl.OP.No.7908 of 2025 ( Abdul Gaffar Vs. Union

of India) dated 12.02.2026 wherein this Court had an occasion to consider

the bail application pending trial. After arriving at a finding that the grounds

of arrest have not been informed to the accused therein, the Court was

pleased to grant the bail with certain conditions.

6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

13.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a

decision of this Court in Crl.OP.No.8413 of 2026 ( Manikandan Vs. The

Inspector of Police, Gummudipoondi PS, Tiruvallur) dated 07.05.2026

wherein this Court had an occasion to consider the bail application. The

learned Single Judge of this Court had enlarged the petitioner therein on bail

on the ground that the petitioner therein was not informed the grounds of

arrest.

14.The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon a

decision of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Crl.MC.No.3703 of 2022

( Sk.Hussain and others Vs. State of Orissa) dated 15.11.2022 wherein it is

held that the physical act of apprehnsion of the petitioners completes the

process of arrest and therefore, mere mentioning of a different time in the

memo of arrest, cannot have any relevance whatsoever for calculating 24

hours. The learned counsel has also relied upon the order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1518 of 2025 (Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of

Chandigarh) dated 25.03.2025 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

pleased to observe that when the grounds of arrest have not been furnished, it

would amount to non-compliance of Section 50 of Cr.P.C and it would be in

violation of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and the order of arrest and

the consequential remand order was set aside.

7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

15.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing

for the respondent had relied upon a decision of this Court in

Crl.A(MD).Nos. 169 of 2023 batch case (Parthipan Vs. The State of Tamil

Nadu, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, NIBCID Police Station, Theni

District) dated 26.08.2025. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in

Crl.OP.No.4140 of 2026 (Dhanasekaran Vs. The Union of India, Rep.by

the Intelligence Officer, T.Nagar, Chennai) dated 16.04.2026 especially

Paragraph No.11 and contended that when the summons were issued to the

accused person and upon interrogation pursuant to the summon and they were

arrested, the initial time of detention cannot be taken into consideration for

calculation of 24 hours. He further relied upon a decision of this Court in

Crl.OP.No.5321 of 2025 ( E.Kadhar Basha and another Vs. Union

represented by the Inspector, NCB, Cheenai Zonal Unit) dated 26.02.2025

especially paragraph No.8 and contended that when summons were issued for

conducting a search, the said time has to be excluded. He also relied upon

paragraph No.12 of the judgment and contended that when the order of

remand was challenged after a period of two years, the same is not

maintainable.

16.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

material records.

8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

(C).Discussion:

17.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the respondent police had

received secret information at 4.10.p.m on 09.10.2024 about the transport of

contraband from Trichy to Madurai in a Ford Figo Car. The respondent

officials have recorded the same in the register at 4.20 p.m and the Inspector

of Police has orally instructed them to proceed in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the Special Sub Inspector, Head Constable and a lady Head

Constable had given information to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar, Othakkadai,

Madurai, the Village Administrative Officer, Rajakambeeram Village to come

to the spot. The police officials have reached the spot at 4.45 p.m. Thereafter,

the Deputy Tahsildhar and the Village Administrative Officer reached the

spot. After that, the Car which came on Trichy-Madurai highway was

identified by the police informant and the Car was intercepted at 5.00 p.m by

the police officials wherein they found that two gents were seated in the front

seat and a lady was seated in the back seat. The police have requested them to

accompany the officials to the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer if

they wish to do so as per their rights under NDPS Act.

18.It is further stated in the F.I.R that the persons have stated that we

do not like to come to any other place and you can conduct search by

themselves. Thereafter, the consent letters were prepared on the spot between

5.10 p.m to 5.40 p.m in which the accused persons and the witnesses have

9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

signed. Thereafter, the police officials have found that two white colour sacks

were found in the back seat of the Car which contained ganja. Each bag was

weighing 25 kg and totally 50 kg of ganja was seized. Between 5.50 p.m to

6.20 p.m, arrest memo was prepared and signatures were obtained from the

accused persons and the witnesses. Later at 6.30 p.m all the accused persons

were arrested and their relatives were informed. They have sealed the two

white colour sacks and signatures were obtained from the accused and the

witnesses. Later between 8.50 p.m to 09.20 p.m, the inspection memo was

prepared and they reached the police station at 09.40 p.m and thereafter, the

report was prepared under Section 57 of NDPS Act and sent to the higher

officials at about 10.30 p.m.

19.A perusal of the impugned remand order dated 10.10.2024 reveals

that all the three accused were produced at the Chamber of the Judicial

Magistrate, Melur at 5.30 p.m on 10.10.2024 and the grounds of arrest were

explained to them. At the time of remand, the legal aid duty Counsel

Mr.Saravanakumar was also present to provide legal aid. It is recorded that

there was no complaint as against the police and there was no external

physical injury and the arrest intimation were given to their relatives. The

properties were produced. The Magistrate has found prima facie case and

remanded the accused person to the judicial custody till 21.10.2024. This

order of remand dated 10.10.2024 is put to challenge in the present petition

10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

which is filed on 12.02.2026 after a period of 16 months seeking to set aside

the order of remand.

20.Let us consider the first contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the arrest memo did not contain full particular and it was

defective in nature and therefore, the order of remand is liable to be set aside.

A copy of the arrest memo has been produced before this Court in the typed

set of papers filed by the petitioner himself. It reveals that all the three

accused were found in possession of 50 kg of ganja illegally without any

permission. The said arrest memo has been signed by the accused persons as

well as by the witnesses Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar and the Village

Administrative Officer. It has also been signed by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Othakkadai Police Station. It is clear that the contraband has been recovered

and it has been pointed out that they are arrested under Section 8(c) read with

Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act.

21.It is further mentioned in the arrest memo that the accused persons

are entitled to inform their relatives and the arrest memo was read over to the

accused persons and they were arrested. The arrest memo clearly mentions

the grounds of arrest as well as the provisions under which they are being

arrested and it is in writing also. The accused persons have signed the same

and they have received a copy. In such circumstances, the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 ( Prabir Purkayastha

11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

Vs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2025 SCC Online SC 1318 ( Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT

of Chandigarh) and (2024) 7 SCC 576 ( Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India

and others) are not applicable to the facts of the present case, in view of the

fact that the grounds of arrest contained all the particulars which necessitates

the arrest of the accused persons and they have been informed in writing also.

Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the arrest memo was defective in nature cannot be countananced.

22.Let us proceeded to consider the next contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners were detained beyond a period

of 24 hours in the police custody and they were produced before the Judicial

Magistrate only at 5.30 p.m on 10.10.2024 and therefore, the arrest and the

order of remand are vitiated. The primary contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that they were physically detained by the police officials

at 5.00 p.m on 09.10.2024 and therefore, the constitutionally mandated

production before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours should be

reckoned from the physical detention.

23. In the present case, as per F.I.R the vehicle was intercepted at 5.00

p.m on 09.10.2024. The consent letter was prepared between 5.10 p.m to

5.45 p.m. The arrest memo was prepared between 5.50 p.m to 6.20 p.m and

the accused persons were arrested at 6.30 p.m on 09.10.2024.

24. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the time taken by the

12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

police officials to conduct search and prepare the arrest memo could be

excluded for calculating 24 hours. The provisions that are relevant for

disposal of this case are extracted as follows:

Section 51 of NDPS Act 1985:

Section 51 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985- Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

to apply to warrants, arrests, searches and seizures.—The

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply,

in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this

Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures

made under this Act.

Section 58 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023:

58. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-

four hours: -No police officer shall detain in custody a person

arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the

circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not,

in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 187,

exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the

journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court, whether

having jurisdiction or not.

Section 42 of NDPS Act:

42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant

or authorisation.—(l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in

rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central

excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other

department of the Central Government including para-military

13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or

special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being

an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the

revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a

State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or

special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe

from personal knowledge or information given by any person and

taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic

substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence

punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or

other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such

offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other

article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally

acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or

forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this Act is kept or concealed in any

building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and

sunset,—

(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or

place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any

obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the

manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or

conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to

confiscation under this Act and any document or other article

which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the

commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish

14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable

for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this

Act;and

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person

whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence

punishable under this Act:

[Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of

manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled

substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made

thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below

the rank of sub-inspector:

Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a

search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without

affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for

the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building,

conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and

sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under

sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso

thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his

immediate official superior.

Section 50 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985.

50.Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.

(1).When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about

to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42

or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person

15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazette Officer of any of

the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest

Magistrate.

(2).If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the

person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the

Magistrate referred to in subsection (1).

(3).The Gazette Officer or the Magistrate before whom any

such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for

search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct

that search be made.

(4).No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a

female.

(5).When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has

reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be

searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the

possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of

any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled

substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such

person to the nearest Gazette Officer or Magistrate, proceed to

search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6).After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the

officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated

such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to

his immediate official superior.”

16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

25.In the present case, a perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the Law

Enforcing Agency had received secret information and after taking down the

same in writing and after informing the Inspector of Police, a team of three

officials including a lady constable have left the police station and intercepted

a private car on the high way at 5.00 p.m. The Law Enforcing Agency had

prepared a report under Section 57 of NDPS at about 10.30 p.m on the said

date and informed to the Inspector of Police at 9.40 p.m on the same day as

per Section 42(2) and prepared a report as contemplated under Section 57 of

NDPS Act at 10.30 p.m on the said date. Therefore, it is clear that the Law

Enforcement Agency has invoked Section 42 of NDPS Act.

26.In order to conduct personal search, the consent letters have been

prepared between 5.10.p.m to 5.40 p.m on the highway itself and the

signatures have been obtained from the accused persons and the witnesses.

Thereafter, the recovery has been made from the back seat of the Car wherein

the first accused was sitting. The arrest memo has been prepared between

5.50 p.m to 6.20 p.m and the signature of the accused and witnesses has been

obtained. The accused persons were arrested at 6.30 p.m as per arrest memo.

17/24

e

l

a

t

e

d

A

I

t

a

g

s

,

q

u

e

r

i

e

s

a

n

d

r

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

n

o

t https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

27.The Five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph

No.32 of the judgement reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 (State of Punjab Vs.

Baldev Singh) has held as follows:

“32........ Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to whether

the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or not, but bearing in

mind the purpose for which the safeguard has been made, we hold

that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act implicitly make it

imperative and obligatory and cast a duty on the Investigating

Officer (empowered officer) to ensure that search of the concerned

person (suspect) is conducted in the manner prescribed by Section

50 , by intimating to the concerned person about the existence of his

right, that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a Gazetted

Officer or a Magistrate and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his

search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, would cause

prejudice to an accused and render the recovery of the illicit article

suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where

the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession

of the illicit article, recovered during a search conducted in violation

of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The omission may not

vitiate the trial as such, but because of the inherent prejudice which

would be caused to an accused by the omission to be informed of the

existence of his right, it would render his conviction and sentence

unsustainable. The protection provided in the section to an accused

to be intimated that he has the right to have his personal search

conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so

18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

requires, is sacrosanct and indefeasible it cannot be disregarded by

the prosecution except at its own peril.”

28.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the procedure

contemplated under Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act are imperative in nature

and non-compliance of the same would render the conviction and sentence

unsustainable. Section 42(d) of NDPS Act points out that a Law Enforcing

Agency is empowered to detain and search and if he thinks proper, arrest any

person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence

punishable under this Act. Section 50 lays down an elaborate procedure for

conducting personal search. The accused persons should be given two options

that either they may get searched before a Gazetted Officer or before the

Magistrate.

29.Section 50(2) points out that if the accused persons request to search

themselves through a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, the accused persons

have to be detained till such officer arrives. Therefore, it is clear that the

detention prior to search or at the time of search cannot be considered to be

arrest under NDPS Act. Unless search is completed and the officer of the Law

Enforcing Agency finds that the accused persons are in possession of

contraband, he cannot arrest them.

30.Section 50(3) of NDPS Act points out that in case if the accused

persons choose to get themselves searched before the Gazetted Officer or the

19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

Magistrate, the concerned officer, if they see that there is no reasonable

ground for search, the accused persons have to be forthwith discharged. On

the other hand, if the concerned officer finds that there are reasonable ground

for search, he can direct that search be made.

31.For a search to be conducted as per Section 50, unless a person is

detained, personal search cannot be conducted. Only after completion of the

personal search, in case, if the contraband is found in possession of any

person, the Law Enforcing Officer can proceed to arrest him. In fact, Section

50(2) clearly points out that till the arrival of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate,

the person who is believed to be in possession of contraband, has to be

detained.

32.Even Section 43(b) (relating to power of search and arrest in the

public place) points out that the detention and search have to precede the

arrest and the arrest can be made only if any person was found to be in

possession of contraband and such possession appears to unlawful. Therefore,

it is clear that under Section 42(d) and 43(b), the word detention and search

are used in contradistinction with the word arrest.

33.The word arrest has not been defined either in BNSS or in any other

statute. Section 43(1) of BNSS only explains how an arrest can be made.

Though detention and arrest involve placing restriction on the movement of

any person, they are conceptually distinct. While detention is investigatory in

20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

nature based on reasonable suspicion, arrest is accusatory in nature after

confirmation of commission of offence. Since the provisions under NDPS Act

are imperative in nature, the officers of Law Enforcing Agency are expected

to strictly follow the same before effecting search, seizure or recovery.

Otherwise that may result in vitiating the conviction and sentence. Therefore,

the said procedure as contemplated under Sections 42, 43 and 50 have to be

strictly complied with by the authorities concerned. Without complying the

same, any arrest made by them, would not be of any help to the prosecution

and the same is likely to result in acquittal.

34.These precautionary procedures have been mandated under the Act

only to safeguard the accused persons from any false cases being foisted as

against them. Therefore, the time taken by the authorities concerned, to fulfil

the statutory mandate, prior to arrest, cannot be included for calculation of 24

hours custody as contemplated under Section 58 of BNSS. When the other

statutes do not provide for a distinction between the detention and the arrest,

the judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be

applicable for detention and arrest under NDPS Act cases.

35.In the present case, the Car was intercepted at 5.00 p.m, the consent

letter was prepared between 5.10 p.m to 5.40 p.m and the search was

conducted between 5.40 p.m to 5.50 p.m and thereafter, arrest memo was

prepared between 5.50 p.m to 6.20 p.m. The petitioners were arrested at 6.30

21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

p.m and there is no unreasonable detention of the accused persons than what

is required for conducting search by following the mandate of Section 42 and

Section 50 of NDPS Act. When 24 hours is calculated from 6.30 p.m on

09.10.2024, production of accused before Jurisdictional Magistrate at 5.30

p.m on 10.10.2024 is well within 24 hours. Therefore, the impugned remand

order of Jurisdictional Magistrate is perfectly in order and does not call for

any interference.

36.The impugned order of remand has been passed on 10.10.2024 and the

present petition seeking to set aside the same has been filed only on

12.02.2026 after a delay of 16 months. It is clear that it is only an after

thought and an attempt to get the remand order set aside, when the accused

persons were not able to get a regular bail after filing of the charge sheet.

(D).Conclusion:

37.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the

petition and this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

01-07-2026

Internet : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

NCC : Yes/No

msa

22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai

2.The The Inspector of Police

Othakadai Police Station

Madurai City -District

Crime No.395 of 2024

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai

23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD).No.3378 of 2026

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

msa

Crl.OP(MD).No. 3378 of 2026

01.07.2026

24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis