Formal arrest during judicial custody does not trigger the twenty-four hour rule automatically; remand may still be authorised on production.

A formal arrest of a person already in judicial custody in another case does not, by itself, place him in police custody or automatically trigger the twenty-four hour rule under Article 22(2) and Section 57. The legal distinction between arrest and custody was applied to hold that the accused may remain in judicial custody in the earlier case until production before the Magistrate. On production, the Magistrate may consider remand under Section 167 on its merits and may authorise custody prospectively, even if a prior detention defect is alleged. The supposed lapse of twenty-four hours from formal arrest was not a bar to a valid remand order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a formal arrest of a person already in judicial custody in another case places him in police custody so as to attract the twenty-four hour rule under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether a Magistrate can authorise detention under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the alleged lapse of twenty-four hours from formal arrest and whether such remand can legalise any prior illegality.

Issue (i): whether a formal arrest of a person already in judicial custody in another case places him in police custody so as to attract the twenty-four hour rule under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The legal distinction between arrest and custody was applied to hold that they are not always synonymous. Where an accused is already in judicial custody in one case, a formal arrest in prison in another case does not necessarily transfer him into physical police custody. In such a situation, the accused continues in judicial custody in the earlier case, and the twenty-four hour requirement for production before a Magistrate is not automatically attracted from the moment of formal arrest.

Conclusion: A formal arrest in prison, by itself, does not amount to police custody for the purpose of Article 22(2) and Section 57 in the facts considered.

Issue (ii): whether a Magistrate can authorise detention under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the alleged lapse of twenty-four hours from formal arrest and whether such remand can legalise any prior illegality.

Analysis: The power under Section 167 was treated as dependent on production of the accused before the Magistrate and on judicial satisfaction regarding the need for custody. The Court distinguished cases where the accused was never produced before the Magistrate after arrest from cases where the accused was later produced pursuant to prison transit process. It was held that a prior illegality, if any, in the period before production does not prevent a competent Magistrate from passing a valid remand order prospectively. The Magistrate was therefore required to consider remand on merits under Section 167 and not reject it solely on the supposed lapse of twenty-four hours from formal arrest.

Conclusion: The Magistrate could validly pass a remand order upon production of the accused, and any alleged prior detention defect was not a bar to prospective remand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal to remand was unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered by the Magistrate under Section 167 on the basis of judicial satisfaction and the relevant materials.

Ratio Decidendi: A formal arrest of an accused already in judicial custody in another case does not, by itself, place him in police custody for the twenty-four hour rule, and a competent Magistrate may still authorise custody prospectively under Section 167 after production of the accused.

---