25-minute delay in producing accused not a fatal mistake: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a murder accused’s petition challenging a 25-minute delay in him being produced before a magistrate after arrest.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, in certain circumstances, failure to produce an accused within the mandatory 24-hour period would not vitiate proceedings.

The petitioner, S Shivaraj, a driver from Shivamogga, is an accused in a supari murder case. According to the prosecution, he killed a man on May 23, 2025, allegedly at the behest of the victim’s wife.

Shivaraj was apprehended on May 25, 2025, at the Kachinakatte bus stop in Shivamogga and formally arrested at 5 pm the same day. He was produced before a magistrate the following day at 5.25 pm.

The petitioner argued that the delay violated his constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

Relied on Google Maps 

He relied on Google Maps to show that the journey from the bus stop where he was apprehended to the police station took 56 minutes, while the distance from the police station to the magistrate court was just two minutes.

Opposing this, the Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay occurred as the jurisdictional magistrate was on leave, and the accused had to be produced before an in-charge magistrate.

The court was also informed that the petitioner’s bail plea had been rejected in December 2025 and that a charge sheet had been filed.

Citing judgments of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the requirement is to produce the accused with the least possible delay.

“The delay of 25 minutes in producing the petitioner before the magistrate is not fatal in the case at hand, as it is adequately explained by the prosecution,” the court observed.

The court further held that in the peculiar facts of the case, the delay — attributed to travel time and confusion over the appropriate court — was justified and did not invalidate the proceedings.