The police cannot keep you as long as they like. The limit is 24 hours.

Key points

• Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: a person arrested without warrant cannot be detained longer than is reasonable, and never more than twenty four hours without a magistrate's special order under section 167, excluding the journey to the magistrate's court.
• Article 10(2) of the Constitution: every person arrested and detained must be produced before a magistrate within twenty four hours, journey time excluded, and cannot be held longer without a magistrate's authority.
• Section 167: the magistrate may authorise detention for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, and must record reasons for police custody.
• The Sindh High Court in 2026 PCrLJ 572 upheld costs of Rs. 10,000 on each officer and departmental proceedings after a magistrate's surprise raid found two men held with no entry in any record.

The rule in one line

After an arrest, the clock starts. Within twenty four hours, not counting the trip to court, the person must be before a magistrate. Only a magistrate can allow more time, with reasons written down for police custody, and never more than fifteen days in all.

What happened in this case

A woman applied under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, saying her brother was being illegally detained at a police station (paragraph 1).

The Sessions Judge appointed a Civil Judge and Magistrate to raid the station. The first raid on 12 November 2024 found no one. On a surprise second raid on 15 November 2024, at about 5:20 pm, the brother was not there, but two other men were found in illegal detention (paragraph 2).

An inquiry by the police's own DSP reported on 24 December 2024 that the officer in charge of the station, an ASI and a head constable were guilty of the illegal confinement (paragraph 3). On 16 January 2025 the Additional Sessions Judge imposed Rs. 10,000 on each of them, to be deposited within fifteen days, and directed the DIGP to conduct departmental proceedings (paragraph 4).

What the officers argued

The officers challenged the order in the High Court. The station's officer in charge said he was on casual leave on the day of the raid and another officer was in charge (paragraph 2).

The Court noted that in the inquiry he had himself admitted handing over charge to the ASI, and the other officer said he never had charge of the station and there was no entry in the station's roznamcha about it. Confronted with this, the officers had no justification (paragraph 6).

What the High Court said

Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber) of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench, decided the application on 10 February 2025.

The Court found no doubt that the two men were being detained at the station "without any entry either registered under section 154 Cr.P.C. or in the Station Diary of the said police station, hence without any legal justification", and nothing showed they were involved in any case (paragraph 10).

It said the station was being used as a detention center for illegal confinement of the very citizens it was established to protect, and that illegal confinement impinges on personal liberty and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution (paragraph 11).

It called Rs. 10,000 each a very lenient view, compared with higher costs imposed in earlier cases, upheld the order, and sent a copy to the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, for a report within thirty days on the action taken and the measures to reform the department (paragraphs 14 and 15).

If someone is held illegally

A habeas corpus application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asks the court to have a person illegally or improperly detained set at liberty. The High Court may let Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges exercise that power, which is how this case began. Speak to a lawyer at once.

The case at a glance

Facts

On a woman's section 491 application about her brother, a magistrate made a surprise raid on a police station on 15 November 2024 and found two other men held there. An inquiry found three officers guilty of illegal confinement. The Additional Sessions Judge imposed Rs. 10,000 on each and directed departmental proceedings. The officers applied to the High Court under section 561-A.

The question

Whether the Sessions Court's order imposing costs and directing departmental action against the officers should be set aside.

What the Court held

No. The two men were detained without any entry under section 154 or in the station diary, without legal justification. The order was upheld and the application dismissed.

Why

Courts are custodians of personal liberty. Illegal confinement by those duty bound to protect citizens violates their constitutional rights. The officer in charge's leave defence was contradicted by his own statement in the inquiry.

Limits

The High Court decided only whether to disturb the Sessions Court's order on these facts. Anti-terrorism, NAB and some other special laws have their own remand rules, and Article 10(3) says clauses (1) and (2) do not apply to a person held under a law providing for preventive detention.

In the Court’s words

“Illegal confinement of a citizen impinges upon his personal liberty and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, especially when such act is conducted by those who are appointed and duty bound to ensure and protect the life and liberty of the same detainee.”

2026 PCrLJ 572, para 11

“To overlook the actions which impinge personal liberties, is to encourage such violations of law.”

2026 PCrLJ 572, citing the Supreme Court in 1995 SCMR 1283, para 11

The law it relies on

What this does not mean

• It does not mean the police must release everyone after twenty four hours. A magistrate can authorise further detention under section 167, up to fifteen days in all, with reasons recorded for police custody.
• It does not cover every law. Anti-terrorism, NAB and some other special laws have their own remand rules, and preventive detention is outside Article 10(2).
• It does not mean every complaint ends in costs. Here a magistrate's raid, an inquiry and the officers' own statements proved the illegal detention.

Questions people ask

Sources

• Ali Asghar and 2 others v. The State and 2 others, 2026 PCrLJ 572 (Sindh High Court (Hyderabad Bench), 10 February 2025), paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15
  Two men held at a police station with no entry under s.154 or in the station diary were detained without legal justification; costs of Rs. 10,000 on each officer and departmental proceedings upheld. verified against full text
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, ss.61, 167, 491 text checked in FAI Statute Search Pakistan Code
• Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art.10(2) text checked in FAI Statute Search Pakistan Code

Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.

What the reel says