Custody and remand control: prisoner production for investigation was not permitted and continued detention needed fresh judicial remand orders.

Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was confined to securing a prisoner's attendance before a court in inquiry, trial, or other pending proceedings, and could not be stretched to compel production merely for police interrogation during investigation. Section 167(2) was read as requiring active judicial control of custody through specific remand orders; an accused had to be produced before the magistrate for further detention unless non-production was lawfully explained. Continued custody after expiry of the authorised remand period, without fresh remand orders, was held illegal. The judgment also noted that the bail prayer had become infructuous because the petitioner was no longer in custody.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be invoked to secure the production of a prisoner for interrogation in aid of investigation. (ii) Whether, under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused had to be produced again for further remand after the initial remand period and whether custody could continue without fresh remand orders.

Issue (i): Whether Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be invoked to secure the production of a prisoner for interrogation in aid of investigation.

Analysis: Section 267 was held to operate in the course of inquiry, trial, or other proceedings pending before a court, and its language and scheme were read as confined to court proceedings. The expression "other proceeding" was construed in context and by applying the rule of ejusdem generis, so as not to include investigation conducted by the police. The form and purpose of the provision were also relied upon to show that it was intended to secure attendance before the court for answering a charge or giving evidence, not to facilitate formal arrest or interrogation by the investigating agency.

Conclusion: Section 267 could not be used to compel production of a prisoner merely for interrogation in investigation; the issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused had to be produced again for further remand after the initial remand period and whether custody could continue without fresh remand orders.

Analysis: The power under Section 167(2) was held to require judicial monitoring of custody through specific remand orders. The magistrate's satisfaction had to be based on the materials required by the Code, and the accused had to be produced before the magistrate for authorising detention unless non-production was explained by valid reasons. The Court rejected the contention that custody could continue in perpetuity after the initial remand, and held that continuous detention without remand orders after the expiry of the lawful period was illegal. On the facts, no remand was sought after the relevant date and no justification for non-production was placed before the court.

Conclusion: Further detention without fresh remand was illegal, and the issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The judgment declared that Section 267 could not be stretched to investigation and that custody under Section 167 had to remain under active judicial control through lawful remand orders; as the petitioner was no longer in custody, the prayer for bail had become infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision authorising production of a prisoner before court for inquiry, trial, or other proceedings cannot be expanded to investigation where the statute does not so provide, and an accused under investigation cannot be kept in custody without lawful and specific remand orders issued by the magistrate.

---