Habeas corpus and judicial remand: custody under a competent court order cannot be challenged as illegal detention by police.

Habeas corpus was held unavailable where the accused was in custody pursuant to a judicial remand order, even though it was alleged that the custody had continued beyond the statutory period and that the charge-sheet was not properly filed. The distinction between illegal police detention and custody under a competent court's remand was treated as material. Article 22(2) protection was held not to extend to detention resulting from judicial remand, and any challenge to the remand or filing process had to be pursued through appropriate proceedings against that judicial order, not through habeas corpus.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued on the ground that the accused's custody had continued beyond the statutory period and that the charge-sheet was allegedly not properly filed, despite the accused having been remanded by a competent court.

Analysis: The challenge was directed not against any continuing illegal detention by the police, but against the remand order passed by the competent court after the charge-sheet was taken on record. The distinction between illegal police detention and custody pursuant to a judicial order was held to be material. The protection under Article 22(2) was treated as unavailable against custody resulting from a judicial remand, and the remedy for any alleged illegality in the remand or filing process was held to lie in appropriate proceedings against that judicial action, not in habeas corpus.

Conclusion: The petition for habeas corpus was not maintainable on these facts and the challenge to detention failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the judicial custody order, holding that the petitioner's continued detention pursuant to remand could not be invalidated through habeas corpus on the basis urged.

Ratio Decidendi: Habeas corpus is not available to challenge custody pursuant to a judicial remand order on the ground of alleged procedural illegality in filing the charge-sheet; it lies only against illegal detention by the police.

---