Interim bail and personal liberty: custody was disallowed where allegations did not disclose a non-bailable offence and remand was mechanical.

Interim bail was granted because the allegations in the FIR and short reply did not disclose a non-bailable offence against the two petitioners, and their continued custody could not be sustained on the basis of mechanically passed remand orders. The Court noted that the arresting officer should have informed them of the option of release on bail bonds or surety, and relied on the protection of personal liberty under Article 21. Exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court intervened to prevent illegal custody and directed that the petitioners' detention not continue on the impugned remand orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim bail should be granted where the allegations did not disclose a non-bailable offence against two petitioners, and whether continued custody could be sustained in view of the arrest and remand orders.

Analysis: The allegations against the two petitioners were found, on the face of the FIR and the short reply, not to make out a non-bailable offence. It was held that the arresting officer ought to have informed them of the remedy of release on bail bonds or surety, and that the remand orders were passed mechanically without examining the statutory position. The Court further relied on the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India to prevent illegal custody.

Conclusion: Interim bail was granted to the two petitioners, and their custody was not permitted to continue on the basis of the impugned remand orders.

---