Validity of remand without personal production upheld where custody records showed continuous judicial authorisation

Remand without the accused's personal production was treated as valid where the record showed continuing judicial custody orders and recorded reasons. A jail warrant endorsement directing production on the next date did not invalidate detention when read with the surrounding court record and the custody extension orders. Prior remand irregularity was not accepted as a basis for release, because the record disclosed no break or illegality in the chain of remand orders and the bail plea on that ground was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a remand order passed in the absence of the accused is valid; (ii) whether an endorsement directing production of the accused on the next date can constitute a valid remand; (iii) whether an earlier illegality in remand can invalidate the present detention and entitle the accused to bail.

Issue (i): Whether a remand order passed in the absence of the accused is valid.

Analysis: The custody records showed that the accused had been moved between different police and judicial custody proceedings and that remand orders were being passed from time to time. Reliance was placed on the settled view that, though production of the accused is ordinarily desirable, remand made without personal production is not invariably invalid and depends on the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The remand order passed in the absence of the accused was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether an endorsement directing production of the accused on the next date can constitute a valid remand.

Analysis: The endorsements on the jail warrants were read with the court record, which showed that reasons had been recorded and the custody period had been extended from time to time. On that basis, the Court held that a mere direction to produce the accused on the next date did not by itself invalidate the remand when the surrounding record disclosed a valid judicial order.

Conclusion: Such an endorsement was held not to render the remand invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether an earlier illegality in remand can invalidate the present detention and entitle the accused to bail.

Analysis: The Court distinguished habeas corpus cases from bail proceedings and observed that, in bail matters, the legality of prior remand orders can be examined. However, on the facts found in the record, there was no break or illegality in the remand orders. The Court therefore did not accept the plea that the accused was entitled to bail on this ground.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and no entitlement to bail arose on the alleged prior illegality.

Final Conclusion: The Court found the custody to be supported by valid remand orders throughout and declined to enlarge the accused on bail.

---