A person arrested should not be detained more than
Show Hint
- 48 hours
- 24 hours
- 14 days
- 90 days
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for the maximum period a person can be detained in police custody after arrest before being produced before a Magistrate. This is a fundamental constitutional and procedural safeguard against illegal detention.
Step 2: Key Legal Provision:
This right is guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and is also provided for in Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Article 22(2): "Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate."
- Section 57, CrPC: "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 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court."
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Both the Constitution and the CrPC mandate that an arrested person must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. This period excludes the time taken for travel. Any detention beyond 24 hours is illegal unless authorized by a Magistrate's order (remand).
- Options (C) 14 days and (D) 90 days are related to the maximum periods of judicial remand that a Magistrate can grant during the investigation phase, not the initial period of detention after arrest.
Step 4: Final Answer:
A person arrested should not be detained in police custody for more than 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate.
Top Questions on Criminal Procedure
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the ma terial on record, the primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is ”whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 of CrPC is permissible or not?” [...] A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarized would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable. Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a procedural review that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Vikram Bakshi v. RP Khosla 2025 INSC 1020)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Procedure
- As per Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if a Magistrate sentenced a person to two years’ imprisonment and a fine, what is the maximum imprisonment he may impose in default of payment of the fine?
- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Procedure
- Under which provision can a citizen file a public case in the Court of Magistrate regarding issues of public interest?
- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Procedure
- Given below are two statements — Assertion (A) and Reason (R):
Assertion (A): Any person having an interest in a newspaper declared forfeited may apply to the High Court to set aside the declaration within two months of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Reason (R): The Special Bench of the High Court to hear such applications must always consist of exactly three judges, regardless of the strength of that High Court.
In the context of the above assertion and reason under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which one is correct?- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Procedure
- A juvenile aged 14 years is brought before the court for an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under which provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, will the case primarily fall?
- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Procedure
Questions Asked in AIBE exam
- In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court of India hold that the rule of nemo judex in causa sua is subject to the doctrine of necessity?
- AIBE - 2025
- Administrative Law
- According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is the fixed amount of compensation payable in the event of death caused by a motor vehicle accident under no-fault liability?
- AIBE - 2025
- General Law
- The grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are:
I. whereabouts of the husband have not been known for two years.
II. husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years.
III. husband has failed to perform marital obligations for two years without reasonable cause.
IV. husband has neglected or failed to maintain his wife for one year.
Select the correct answer.- AIBE - 2025
- Family Laws
- Statement 1: Under the Indian Penal Code, if a person harbours an offender who has escaped custody for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, he shall be punished with imprisonment up to 7 years.
Statement 2: The law provides an exception for harbouring or concealing by the husband or wife of the offender.- AIBE - 2025
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- A Statement is followed by two Conclusions, I and II.
Statement: According to the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, the Government credits ₹15,000 to the Rehabilitation Fund for each child or adolescent for whom fine has been recovered from the employer. This amount may be deposited or invested, and the interest is also payable to the child or adolescent.
Conclusions:
I. The child or adolescent is entitled not only to the credited amount but also to the interest accrued on it.
II. The Government is not required to deposit any money other than what is collected as fines from the employer.
Which one is correct?- AIBE - 2025
- Labour & Industrial Law