Custody challenge after remand order must be taken before the remand court; interim release cannot be granted elsewhere.

After a competent court has passed a remand order, any challenge to custody must be pursued before the court with jurisdiction over that remand, and interim release cannot be granted in collateral proceedings before another court. The alleged non-service of summons in the second ECIR could not be conclusively determined on the material then available, and the alleged failure to disclose the later FIR and ECIR was treated as relevant only to a challenge to the remand order, not as a basis for interim relief in these applications. The applications for release from custody were therefore rejected, while the connected writ petitions were left to proceed separately.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interim directions for release from custody could be granted after a competent court had already passed a remand order; (ii) whether the alleged non-service of summons in the second ECIR could be decided at this stage; (iii) whether the alleged non-disclosure of the subsequent FIR and ECIR at the earlier hearing could be used in these applications.

Issue (i): Whether interim directions for release from custody could be granted after a competent court had already passed a remand order.

Analysis: Once a competent court at Panchkula had passed a remand order, any challenge to custody arising from that order had to be pursued before the High Court having jurisdiction over that remand. Granting interim relief in these proceedings would amount to exercising jurisdiction over the order of remand passed by another competent court, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The relief for release from custody could not be granted in these applications and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-service of summons in the second ECIR could be decided at this stage.

Analysis: The question whether summons were served in relation to the second ECIR required examination of the respondent's counter-affidavit and could not be conclusively determined on the material then available.

Conclusion: No finding was recorded on this issue at this stage.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged non-disclosure of the subsequent FIR and ECIR at the earlier hearing could be used in these applications.

Analysis: The contention that the later FIR and second ECIR should have been disclosed at the earlier hearing was held to be a matter relevant to any challenge to the remand order passed by the Panchkula court, not to the present applications for interim relief.

Conclusion: The point was not accepted as a basis for granting relief in these applications.

Final Conclusion: The applications seeking interim release from custody were rejected, while the connected writ petitions were left to proceed separately.

Ratio Decidendi: After a competent court has passed a remand order, a challenge to custody must be taken before the court having jurisdiction over that remand, and interim release cannot be granted in collateral proceedings before another court.

---