PRINCIPLE: Article 22 establishes that no person may be arrested or detained except on grounds prescribed by law. The arresting authority must produce the arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding time spent in transit. Failure to produce the person within this period renders the arrest unlawful, regardless of the strength of evidence against the accused.

FACTUAL SCENARIO:

On Monday at 2:00 PM, police arrested Mr. Rajesh Kumar at his residence on suspicion of theft. They took him to the police station and began interrogation. By Tuesday at 1:30 PM (23.5 hours later), the investigating officer decided to take Kumar to the magistrate's court for formal procedures. However, the magistrate's court was closed due to an administrative holiday. The police then held Kumar at the station for an additional 4 hours until Wednesday morning, when they finally produced him before the magistrate.

The defense counsel argued that the 24-hour period was violated because Kumar was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The prosecution countered that the court closure was beyond police control and constituted an exception. They further argued that the evidence against Kumar was extremely strong, proving his guilt beyond doubt, which should justify the detention extension.

The magistrate must now decide: (1) whether the arrest remains valid despite exceeding the 24-hour window, and (2) whether exceptional circumstances (court closure) or evidentiary strength can override Article 22's mandatory requirement.

Under Article 22, the principle is absolute: lawful grounds for arrest alone are insufficient. The person must be produced before a magistrate within the prescribed 24-hour period. This is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent arbitrary detention and ensure independent judicial oversight, not dependent on case strength or administrative inconvenience.