Criminal remand under Section 167 CrPC depends on lawful production and investigation-stage custody, while post-charge-sheet detention shifts to Section 309.

Section 167 CrPC applies only during investigation, after the police forward the required papers and the accused to the Magistrate; remand ordered before FIR registration and before that statutory basis existed was held improper. The same provision also requires production of the accused for remand, either physically or through authorised video linkage, and custody cannot be authorised without such appearance. After the charge-sheet is filed, Section 167 ceases to operate and custody is then governed by Section 309; despite cognizance being delayed because sanction was pending, the post-charge-sheet custody was treated as continuing lawfully, so habeas corpus relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether detention and remand could be ordered under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a report/FIR in place; (ii) Whether remand could be authorised without producing the accused before the Magistrate physically or through video linkage; (iii) Whether, after filing of the charge-sheet but before cognizance, custody could be continued and remand granted.

Issue (i): Whether detention and remand could be ordered under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a report/FIR in place?

Analysis: Section 167 operates after the police transmit the required papers to the Magistrate and forward the accused. The initial arrest and the first remand orders were made before registration of the FIR and before the statutory foundation for remand was in place.

Conclusion: The first question was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether remand could be authorised without producing the accused before the Magistrate physically or through video linkage?

Analysis: The scheme of Section 167 requires that the accused be forwarded to the Magistrate for remand. An order of custody cannot be made without such production, whether by physical appearance or by authorised video linkage.

Conclusion: The second question was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether, after filing of the charge-sheet but before cognizance, custody could be continued and remand granted?

Analysis: Once investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed, Section 167 ceases to apply. Custody thereafter is governed by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the absence of cognizance because sanction was pending did not render the custody illegal in the circumstances of the case. The custody was treated as continuing lawfully to bridge the gap between investigation and cognizance.

Conclusion: The third question was answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the custody after filing of the charge-sheet was not held to be illegal, and no order for release in habeas corpus was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs remand only during investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet, while custody after the charge-sheet and before cognizance is controlled by Section 309; a habeas corpus challenge succeeds only if the detention is unlawful on the date of decision.

---