Habeas corpus and criminal case transfer depend on current lawful detention and expediency in the interests of justice.

In habeas corpus proceedings, detention is assessed by reference to the custody existing at the time of the return, and confinement under a competent court's order will not be disturbed unless the order is shown to be without jurisdiction or otherwise illegal; on that basis, the challenge to present detention failed. For transfer of criminal cases, section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 requires a demonstrated expediency in the interests of justice; no such ground was shown, so transfer was refused and the matter was left to proceed expeditiously at Bhubaneshwar.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus in view of his detention pursuant to orders of competent courts and the challenge to earlier custody; (ii) whether the criminal cases pending at Bhubaneshwar were liable to be transferred under section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus in view of his detention pursuant to orders of competent courts and the challenge to earlier custody.

Analysis: The legality of detention in habeas corpus proceedings is to be examined with reference to the detention existing at the time of the return. Where a person is confined under orders of a competent court, and the order is not shown to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, the Court will not interfere. Allegations relating to earlier movement or custody, even if assumed to be correct, do not invalidate a subsequent lawful remand or detention. On the material placed, the petitioner's present confinement was not shown to be illegal.

Conclusion: The request for habeas corpus relief failed and was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal cases pending at Bhubaneshwar were liable to be transferred under section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: Transfer under section 527 requires a ground of expediency for the ends of justice. No such ground was made out for shifting the cases from Bhubaneshwar to Maharashtra or any other State. Instead, the appropriate course was to ensure expeditious trial, and the trial court was directed to proceed day to day so that avoidable delay could be avoided.

Conclusion: The transfer request was rejected and was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Both petitions were held to be without merit, and the proceedings were brought to an end by dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: In habeas corpus proceedings, the Court concerns itself with the legality of detention at the time of return, and detention under a competent court's order will not be disturbed unless shown to be without jurisdiction or illegal; transfer of criminal proceedings requires a demonstrated expediency in the interests of justice.

---