ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. 1. This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C) filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to grant regular bail in F.No.DRI/HZU/VRU/48/ENQ-1(INT-1)/2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard arguments of Sri D.Subash, the learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Shanti Chandra, the learned Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI appearing on behalf of respondent. 3. A perusal of the record shows that by virtue of receiving credible information, it was on 15.02.2024 at about 08.45 pm, the D.R.I officers and staff mounted surveillance on NH16 road towards Vijayawada on Chennai-Kolkata High way and near new Swagat Hotel, Dhaba-2, Gidavari 4th bridge, Diwancheruvu, Rajamahendravaram. They noticed a water tanker attached with a tractor bearing No.AP 05 CB 1639 with two persons. They also noticed two individuals on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 DW 8700 closely escorting the tractor. All of them were intercepted by the DRI Officers and on search of the tanker, they found 790.73 Kgs of Ganja in it. All the four persons who are arrayed as A1 to A4 were arrested and the contraband was seized along with vehicles in the presence of mediators. All the accused were arrested on 16.02.2024 and thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody on 17.02.2024. The petitioners herein preferred regular bail in Crl.M.P.No.1039 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the Cases under the NDPS Act – cum - I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. Thereafter, they moved this criminal petition before this court seeking regular bail. 4. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that these accused having been arrested, the respondent were under law bound to produce them before the competent Magistrate within 24 hours and the same was not done and that is in violation of Sections 57 and 167 CrPC and in violation of the Fundamental Right contained in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that even though there was an order of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, remanding these accused and subsequently, the investigation progressed and resulted in filing of charge sheet/complaint, the initial illegality could not get cured and petitioners are entitled for bail. In this regard, reliance is placed on Prabir Purkayastha V. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414 and State of Punjab V. Balbir Singh, 1994 SCC (3) 299. 5. As against the above, learned standing counsel for DRI and DGGI appearing for respondent filed a counter and submits that there was no violation of statute and precedent and within 24 hours of formal arrest, the petitioners were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and on 12.08.2024, the investigation was concluded so far as A1 to A4 were concerned and a complaint/charge sheet was also laid before learned Special Court for Trial of offences under NDPS Act – cum - I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram and that became S.C.No.144 of 2024 and the prosecution is ready to proceed with the trial of the case. In a heinous crime like the present, the petitioners are not entitled for bail as nothing on record would indicate any reasonable grounds to presume that these petitioners are innocent and are not guilty and therefore by virtue of the bar contained in section 37 of the NDPS Act, the bail plea cannot be conceded by this court. It is further submitted that these petitioners though stated for themselves that they are innocents, the fact remains that they were involved in similar crimes on earlier occasions. Learned standing counsel submits that A1/Sri Eepu Ramana was earlier involved in Cr.No.17 of 2023 of Chintapalli Police Station of Visakhapatnam District and A2/ Sri Eepu Rajesh was involved in Cr.No.37 of 2023 of Ravulapalem Police Station of East Godavari District and the necessary papers indicating those crimes are also filed. That in the present case, huge quantity of Ganja is involved and in such a heinous crime, the petitioners cannot claim bail. 6. Having bestowed keen attention on the facts available in the record and the submissions made on both sides, the following facts are to be noticed: The respondent authorities intercepted two vehicles and the four accused at 08.45 pm on 15.02.2024. 6. Having bestowed keen attention on the facts available in the record and the submissions made on both sides, the following facts are to be noticed: The respondent authorities intercepted two vehicles and the four accused at 08.45 pm on 15.02.2024. Verification of contraband and seizure and sealing of them and preparation of Panchanama stood concluded at 09.00 am on 16.02.2024. These facts are very much apparent from the record, namely, panchanama and remand report. However, they were not produced before the learned Magistrate soon thereafter. As per the remand report, they were produced on 17.02.2024 before the learned Magistrate. By then, it was more than 24 hours. What legal consequence should follow in such a situation was enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Manoj V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (3) SCC 401. “The police officer who conducts investigation cannot obviate the legal obligation to perform two requisites if he knows that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours after arrest of the accused. One requisite is, to transmit a copy of the case diary to the nearest judicial magistrate. The other is, to forward the accused to such magistrate simultaneously. The only exceptional ground on which the police officer can avoid producing the arrested person before such magistrate is when the officer concerned is satisfied that there are no grounds for believing that the information or accusation was well-founded. In such a case, the accused must be released from custody to which he was interred pursuant to the arrest. In this context Section 57 of the Code is also relevant and hence it is extracted below: "57. 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 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court." If the police officer is forbidden from keeping an arrested person beyond twenty-four hours without order of a magistrate, what should happen to the arrested person after the said period. It is a constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established in law. It is a constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established in law. Close to its heels the Constitution directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The only time permitted by Article 22 of the Constitution to be excluded from the said period of 24 hours is "the time necessary for going from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate". Only under two contingencies can the said direction be obviated. One is when the person arrested is an "enemy alien". Second is when the arrest is under any law for preventive detention. In all other cases the Constitution has prohibited peremptorily that "no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate". 7. It has also been the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere passing of successive remand orders by competent Magistrate and filing of charge sheet would not be sufficient to validate the initial arrest, in the event, it is found that there was no legal compliance of procedure to be followed subsequent to arrest in Prabir Purkayastha V. State (NCT of Delhi)’s case (mentioned (supra)). 8. The above principles govern the facts on hand. It requires a mention here that the respondent seems to be aware of the legal mandate. In the remand report, it is mentioned in the following words: “The entire Panchanama proceedings were conducted in a peaceful manner and concluded at 09.00 hours of 16.02.2024 and allowed the accused freely by informing that a summons would be issued for personal appearance” This would make one to think that the respondent having arrested the petitioners without warrant from the court, having completed the necessary investigative work of seizure and preparation of Panchanama left the petitioners to their liberty even without obtaining any bonds. If that be the case, how were they produced before the learned Magistrate is a matter for consideration. In the next page of the remand application, the following is noticed: “From the foregoing, it is evident that A.1, A.2, A.3 & A.4 have indulged in dealing with Cannabis, a Narcotic drug under the NDPS Act, 1985, without having any requisite authorization or any documents from any of the Government agencies. In the next page of the remand application, the following is noticed: “From the foregoing, it is evident that A.1, A.2, A.3 & A.4 have indulged in dealing with Cannabis, a Narcotic drug under the NDPS Act, 1985, without having any requisite authorization or any documents from any of the Government agencies. They have entered into conspiracy to transport the Cannabis also known as Ganja. It is submitted that Accused are liable for punishment under Sections 20, 28 & 29, as applicable to them, of the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, A.1, A.2, A.3 & A.4 were arrested on 16.02.2024 at 22:30 Hrs., under Section 42 of NDPS Act at the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Division, Srinagar, Morampudi Road, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District- 533 107.” 9. From what is referred above, what falls for enquiry is to see where were these petitioners from 09.00 am on 16.02.2024 till 10.30 pm on 16.02.2024. It is not the case on both sides that the petitioners went to their homes. That means they were very much under the control of the respondent. As long as they were not at liberty to exercise their own choice, they were deemed to have been in the custody of the respondent as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Directorate of Enforcement V. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 . The sincere investigation fumbled in complying the legal mandate. 10. It is in the above context of facts, this court finds that there shall be no reason to continue further detention of these petitioners and they shall be released on bail. 11. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed in the following terms: 1. The petitioners/A1 and A2 shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. The petitioners shall regularly appear before the competent court and participate in the pre-trial and trial process without fail.