Habeas corpus and valid remand: lawful judicial custody can continue despite an earlier illegal arrest.

In habeas corpus proceedings, continued detention under a valid remand order passed by a competent court can be lawful even if the initial arrest or detention was allegedly contrary to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Court distinguished unlawful initial custody from subsequent judicial custody, holding that the legality of detention must be tested at the time release is sought. It preferred authorities recognising that a later valid remand cannot be ignored, and overruled decisions treating non-compliance with Article 22(1) as an incurable defect to that extent. An accused in judicial custody under a valid remand cannot be released solely because the earlier detention was unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person in judicial custody under a valid remand order under Sections 209 or 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be released on habeas corpus solely because the initial arrest or detention allegedly violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that a habeas corpus court examines whether the detention is lawful when the Court is asked to grant release, and a valid remand by a competent court is material to that inquiry. The reasoning distinguished cases where the initial arrest was illegal from the separate question whether custody had thereafter been lawfully continued under a judicial order. Authorities holding that a later valid remand cannot be ignored were preferred, and decisions treating non-compliance with Article 22(1) as an incurable defect were overruled to that extent.

Conclusion: An accused person in judicial custody under a valid remand order cannot be set at liberty in habeas corpus solely on the ground that the initial detention was violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: In habeas corpus proceedings, a valid remand order passed by a competent court can sustain continued detention notwithstanding an earlier illegality in arrest or initial custody, and the court will not order release merely because the detention was unlawful at an earlier stage.

---