Remand orders and interim custody relief were upheld where detention rested on valid judicial orders and investigation remained ongoing.

Remand orders passed by a competent court in exercise of judicial power were not liable to interference in collateral proceedings where the record showed consideration of the merits and the justification for custody. The legality of detention had to be tested by reference to the dates of the remand orders, so the petitioners' challenge based only on alleged initial illegality failed. Interim release was also refused because the allegations under investigation were serious, including improper favour and laundering-related activity, and the investigation remained ongoing. On that basis, no ground for interference was made out and the petitions were declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the orders remanding the petitioners to the custody of the Enforcement Directorate and thereafter to judicial custody were liable to be set aside. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to release from custody at the interim stage.

Issue (i): Whether the orders remanding the petitioners to the custody of the Enforcement Directorate and thereafter to judicial custody were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The remand orders were passed by a competent court in exercise of a judicial function. The record showed that the merits of the matter and the justification for detention were considered when the petitioners were remanded to custody. The challenge to the correctness of those orders could not succeed at this stage merely on the assertion that the initial detention was illegal. The legality of detention had to be examined with reference to the dates on which the remand orders were passed, and the present confinement could not be invalidated on that basis.

Conclusion: The challenge to the remand orders failed and the relief seeking their setting aside was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to release from custody at the interim stage.

Analysis: The allegations under investigation were serious, including allegations concerning improper favour and laundering-related activity. The investigation was still in progress and the material on record did not justify grant of release from custody at that stage. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, interim release was not warranted.

Conclusion: The prayer for release from custody was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not disclose any ground for interference, and the reliefs sought by the petitioners were declined, resulting in dismissal of the petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order passed by a competent court in exercise of judicial power cannot be interfered with in collateral proceedings when custody is shown to rest on a valid judicial order, and interim release may be refused where the allegations are grave and investigation is continuing.

---