NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Delhi high court has granted bail to an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), citing a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights regarding the timing of his production before a magistrate. The appellant, Harsh Pal Singh alias Rubal, was allegedly involved in an organized crime syndicate and faced charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha delivered the judgment on February 10, 2026, setting aside a previous trial court order that had denied him bail.The core of the legal dispute centered on the timeline of the appellant’s arrest and subsequent production in court. Singh was detained at Amritsar Airport on the night of September 25, 2025, while attempting to travel to Bangkok. He was subsequently handed over to the Delhi Police Special Cell and produced before a Special Court on September 27, 2025. The defense team led by, Advocate Rajani and Nishant Rana, argued that the total time he spent in custody before being presented to a magistrate exceeded the 24-hour limit mandated by Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. While the prosecution claimed Singh had been briefly interrogated and released on a notice to join the investigation the next day, the high court found these claims “quite doubtful”. General Diary entries indicated that Singh’s belongings, including his passport and bag, were handed over to the Delhi team, who then left with him in a government vehicle, making a formal release unlikely.The court emphasized that the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours is a peremptory constitutional mandate. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that any detention beyond this period without judicial authority renders the custody illegal. Despite the prosecution’s concerns regarding the gravity of the offences and Singh’s perceived attempt to abscond by booking a flight shortly after receiving a police notice, the court maintained that procedural law must be strictly followed. Consequently, bail was granted on stringent conditions, including a personal bond of Rs two lakhs.
