Habeas corpus and arrest safeguards: later remand does not cure an earlier illegal arrest or detention.

Later judicial remand does not by itself cure an earlier arrest or detention that breached the mandatory safeguards on disclosure of grounds of arrest and prompt production before a Magistrate under Article 22 and Section 50 CrPC. The legality of detention must be tested on the contemporaneous arrest and remand record, and habeas corpus relief may still lie where compliance is not shown. On the facts recorded, relief was granted only in Sher Bahadur Singh's case because the arrest and remand were not satisfactorily proved; the remaining petitioners were refused relief because the records showed disclosure of grounds and lawful remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a later remand to judicial custody cures an earlier illegality in arrest or detention for alleged non-compliance with Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the arrest and remand of each petitioner were lawful on the facts, so as to justify continued detention or release.

Issue (i): Whether a later remand to judicial custody cures an earlier illegality in arrest or detention for alleged non-compliance with Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: A breach of the constitutional or statutory requirements governing arrest does not automatically become irrelevant merely because the accused is later produced before and remanded by a Magistrate. The arresting agency must be able to show compliance with the obligation to disclose the grounds and particulars of arrest and to produce the arrested person within the permitted time. If such compliance is lacking, habeas corpus relief may still be available, subject to the facts of each case.

Conclusion: Subsequent remand does not, by itself, cure an earlier illegal arrest or detention.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest and remand of each petitioner were lawful on the facts, so as to justify continued detention or release.

Analysis: On the evidence before it, the Court found no reliable material showing disclosure of the grounds of arrest or valid remand in Sher Bahadur Singh's case, and ordered his release. In Mahendra Bhushan's case, the arrest memo and remand papers showed disclosure of reasons for arrest and lawful remand, so the petition failed. In Israr Ahmad's case, the recovery memo and contemporaneous police records established disclosure of grounds and a lawful initial remand, and the petition failed. In Zakir's case, the arrest memo and custody papers showed communication of the basis of arrest and no patent illegality in the remand process, and the petition failed.

Conclusion: Relief was granted only in Sher Bahadur Singh's case, while the remaining petitions were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The judgment accepted the habeas corpus challenge only where the arrest and remand were not satisfactorily proved, and declined interference where contemporaneous records established disclosure of grounds and lawful remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Later judicial remand does not validate an arrest that is shown to have been made in breach of the mandatory safeguards governing disclosure of grounds and prompt production before a Magistrate; the legality of detention must be tested on the contemporaneous arrest and remand record.

---