Lawful judicial remand defeats habeas corpus; an accused in custody should seek bail before the criminal court.

Custody pursuant to arrest in a criminal case, followed by production before the Magistrate and remand by judicial order, was not illegal detention. The record showed continued custody under valid remand orders passed by the competent criminal court, so habeas corpus under Article 32 was unavailable. Where detention is authorised by law and supported by judicial remand, the proper remedy is to seek bail before the criminal court, not challenge custody as unlawful by writ.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was in illegal custody so as to justify issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner was shown by the record to be an accused in a criminal case registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, arrested in connection with that case, produced before the competent Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody by a judicial order. The material placed before the Court, including the original record, showed continued custody pursuant to remand orders passed by the competent criminal court. In these circumstances, the detention could not be treated as unlawful or without authority of law. The proper course for the petitioner was to seek bail before the criminal court rather than invoke habeas corpus.

Conclusion: The claim of illegal detention was rejected and the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable.

---