Habeas corpus and remand custody: alleged arrest irregularities do not justify release once valid judicial remand exists.

Grounds of arrest must be assessed on the record in each case, and where the affidavits and materials showed communication at arrest, non-compliance with Section 50(1) CrPC and Article 22(1) was not established. Habeas corpus was held unavailable where the detainees were already in custody under valid remand orders passed by competent courts, because detention is tested at the time of hearing and an alleged arrest irregularity does not by itself justify release. The Court also construed Section 209(b) CrPC as authorising committal remand until conclusion of trial, so no fresh remand was needed merely because proceedings later fell within Section 309(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were not informed of the grounds of arrest so as to constitute non-compliance with Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued where the petitioners were in custody under valid remand orders passed by competent courts; (iii) Whether an order of committal remand under Section 209(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 continued till conclusion of trial and no fresh remand was required under Section 309(2).

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were not informed of the grounds of arrest so as to constitute non-compliance with Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The question whether the grounds of arrest were communicated is one of fact to be decided on the material in each case. The affidavits and counter-affidavits showed that the arresting officers asserted communication of the grounds, supported in one case by the general diary entry, while the supporting affidavits for the petitions were not based on personal knowledge of the arrest and did not establish non-communication. On the record, the Court was satisfied that the grounds of arrest had been communicated at the time of arrest.

Conclusion: The plea of non-compliance with Section 50(1) and Article 22(1) failed against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued where the petitioners were in custody under valid remand orders passed by competent courts.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the legality of detention in habeas corpus must be examined with reference to the detention existing at the time of return or hearing. Even if there had been an irregularity at the stage of arrest, the petitioners were in custody under valid orders of remand passed by competent Magistrates or the Sessions Court. In such circumstances, the earlier alleged illegality did not entitle them to immediate release by habeas corpus. The Court rejected the contrary view taken in earlier decisions and held that those decisions were not correct in light of binding Supreme Court authority.

Conclusion: A writ of habeas corpus could not be granted merely on account of any alleged illegality in arrest when valid remand orders were in force.

Issue (iii): Whether an order of committal remand under Section 209(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 continued till conclusion of trial and no fresh remand was required under Section 309(2).

Analysis: The Court construed the language of Section 209(b) as plain and unambiguous, authorising remand to custody during and until the conclusion of trial. It held that this remand did not lapse merely because the Sessions Court later proceeded under Section 309(2). The view requiring a fresh remand on the commencement of Section 309 proceedings was held to be inconsistent with the statute and was overruled.

Conclusion: The committal remand under Section 209(b) remained effective till the conclusion of trial, and no fresh remand was necessary merely because Section 309(2) became applicable.

Final Conclusion: The petitions disclosed no enforceable ground for release in habeas corpus, because the alleged defect in arrest was not established and, in any event, the detention was supported by valid judicial remand orders.

Ratio Decidendi: In habeas corpus proceedings, detention must be tested against the legality of custody at the time of hearing, and an alleged illegality in arrest does not entitle the detenue to release once a competent court is holding him under a valid remand order.

---