Production warrant custody and judicial remand under CrPC do not by themselves make detention illegal

Section 267 CrPC secures a prisoner's attendance before the criminal court but does not itself authorise remand; remand remains traceable only to Section 167. The court distinguished arrest from custody and held that arrest is not a prerequisite for judicial remand, because a person may come into custody on surrender or lawful production before the court. It further held that production under a production warrant does not make detention illegal if the court thereafter passes a valid judicial remand order. On that basis, the custody was not shown to be illegal and habeas corpus was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prisoner produced on a production warrant under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be validly remanded to judicial custody only under Section 167 of that Code, and whether such custody can be treated as illegal so as to justify a writ of habeas corpus.

Analysis: Section 267 is meant to secure the attendance of a prisoner before the criminal court for inquiry, trial, or other proceedings, and does not itself authorise remand. The power of remand remains traceable only to Section 167. The Court held that arrest is not a pre-condition for remand, because a person may also come into judicial custody upon surrender or lawful production before the court. It further held that the distinction between arrest and custody must be maintained, and that production under a production warrant does not by itself render the detention illegal where the court thereafter passes a judicial order of remand.

Conclusion: The petitioner's custody was not shown to be illegal on the ground urged, and habeas corpus was not available.

---