Article 22(2) and default bail depend on formal remand dates, not a disputed earlier arrest claim.

No reliable material supported the claim that the appellant was arrested on 10 October 2008; the record instead showed interrogation, travel, hospitalisation, and formal arrest on 23 October 2008. On that factual basis, no violation of Article 22(2) was established because custody following production before the Magistrate and remand to judicial custody was pursuant to judicial order. For default bail, the relevant period under Section 167(2) runs from the first remand order, not from the date of arrest. As the charge-sheet was filed within 90 days from the first remand, no right to default bail survived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had been arrested on 10 October 2008 so as to attract violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the charge-sheet was filed beyond the prescribed period.

Analysis: The appellant's own affidavit and the surrounding record showed that she had been called for interrogation, had travelled with her companion, stayed in lodges, attended the investigating office on different dates, and was later admitted to hospitals before her formal arrest on 23 October 2008. The Court found no reliable material to support the plea of arrest on 10 October 2008, and agreed with the concurrent factual findings of the courts below. It further held that, for the purpose of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant period runs from the date of the first remand order, not from the date of arrest, and the charge-sheet having been filed within 90 days from the first remand, no right to default bail survived. Once the appellant was produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody, Article 22(2) could not be invoked against custody pursuant to judicial order.

Conclusion: The plea of arrest on 10 October 2008 failed, no violation of Article 22(2) was made out, and the appellant was not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---